Open discussion on using TC-W3 oil as an additive

[mcrews]

Originally Posted by slowmover

I tried it in one tank in my truck. MPG immediately dropped. Gave the gallon to friend who works on power equipment.

Slow mover,
would you mind saying 'diesel truck'. I believe all of us that are trying the stuff are gasoline.
I know on other topics like wai/cai you are always clear that diesel results are different.

[WesternStarSCR]

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!

[Beau]

I appreciate both the tone and content of your post.

As for me, I am not suggesting this is the end all, be all, nor that anyone else should do this. But I have and do, and to me there is a fun element to it.

And I simply do not understand anyone being contentious over this.

The bottom line is: It will either do something positive, not do anything at all, or do something negative. Regardless, whatever the outcome – it isn't irreversible and any downside is not irreparable.

I was very skeptical, and I wanted to make sure there would not be any adverse impact of sensors CAT, etc. I read up on ashless oil. I decided it was worth a try. Without telling my son, I also added a tank’s worth to his truck (I own it), and without prompting him - he mentioned it ran more smoothly.

So there you have it. It either works, or it doesn’t. I don’t have a quarrel if some want to try it, and I don’t have a quarrel if some do not what to try it and think it is a foolish idea.

But, I don’t get what seems to be a latent hostility against this. Lets take inventory here: We are talking about a gasoline additive. I could understand the angst if we were talking about something like rampant and irresponsible government spending.

[WesternStarSCR]

Loved the last line there... had to laugh. Thanks for the complement BTW

But I think it is not too hostile, and I hope it really won't be.

I saw what the guy pushing the Amsoil additive had to put up with... he got ran out of town. On his own accord though. All he had to do was either back off his claim, and say that it MAY help MPG, or help provide soem low cost samples to people. Some people were will ing to drive hundreds of miles just to test it out. That is dedication. He never took their offer.

I think by all of us reminding people the goal of this thread, there will be minimal risk of flame wars.

I am just plodding along, finishing off my bottle of Lucas UCL this month, so I can use the container to begin the 2 stroke testing in January. I plan on tracking my wifes MPG here on out, so I will get a few weeks of pre-addtive as a baseline.

Boy I wish she drove less, umm, what is the opposite of smooth and planned? Not sure the word for that... oh well.

Cheers

[UFO]

Originally Posted by WesternStarSCR

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.

All I am really saying is your "experiment" is not controlled tightly enough to determine whether your additive is making a difference. You are relying on a statistically significant difference that may not manifest because your variables are larger than the potential change.

Originally Posted by WesternStarSCR

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.

Here is where I disagree. 2% to 5% is a BIG difference for a 0.15% concentration of additive. Unfortunately 2% to 5% is still difficult to measure given your context.

Originally Posted by WesternStarSCR

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.

Yes, it is common to market a product in such a manner. And I agree, I don't think you will be doing any harm to your vehicle.

Originally Posted by WesternStarSCR

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!

I appreciate your willingness to read and address differing opinions and trains of thought. Since your thread title invites "open discussion" I am glad to participate.

[wmjinman]

Originally Posted by WesternStarSCR

I saw what the guy pushing the Amsoil additive had to put up with... he got ran out of town. On his own accord though. All he had to do was either back off his claim, and say that it MAY help MPG, or help provide some low cost samples to people. Some people were will ing to drive hundreds of miles just to test it out. That is dedication. He never took their offer.Cheers

Hi guys,

I've been following this thread off and on for awhile, and unlike our former Amsoil friend with all the brains and experience, my "B.S. Meter" is not registering here. It looks like several of you are taking a look at this stuff with an un-biased attitude, and are attempting to come to some conclusion. Good for you!! I anxiously await any results that eventually get posted.

I'm really struggling with the whole Amsoil testing thing now. Personally, I think the claims are probably baseless. This makes me prejudiced. Can I even do an un-biased test at this point? I'd like to think so, but I wonder. Also, I'm starting to see enough variation in my own mileage while testing that I'm becoming more and more afraid my margin of error may make any test I do - - "inconclusive". And then, of course, the reality of the cost of the gas I'd be burning finally started to "sink in", too.

In the meantime, I've done my oil change (to Mobil-1, 5-20, which I'm also hoping to see if it makes a difference), and am burning out the remnants of the SeaFoam treatment I did. So if I can find a place to get this Amsoil stuff without having to listen to some over-the-top sales pitch in the process, I may still do something there.

Bill

[roosterk0031]

My variation in the Cobalt from tank to tank is so bad right now I don't think I have a chance of any results. Maybe I'll get a cruise control for x'mas see if that helps even things out.

The Altima is probably the best choice in my fleet, Kristin drives less than a block, then 4 miles of hwy, and into parking lot. It also run's the worst so maybe best chance of positive results.

Edit: Dosed the Altima tonight, I'll fill it up this weekend, have some Seafoam but resisted pouring it in.

[Ardent]

A data point of my own:

About six months ago, having seen the lubricity study and LS1 Tech info, I added TC-W3 to my wife's car at the 1oz./5gal. ratio solely for its purported lubricity benefit.

As a test subject, she and her car are near ideal as far as I can determine. She puts on 400+ miles commuting each week, consistently managing 28.0 mpg. When I would drive her car on the weekend for a trip, I got 30.0 mpg. There's a max variance of about 0.5 to these figures, but the week to week variation was very small.

Immediately and unexpectedly her mileage jumped to 30.0 and weekend driving by me netted a similar increase to 32.0. I was thrilled and also puzzled as to why everyone wasn't doing this too!

I tried it in my pickup and saw the same 6-7 percent increase.

I talked a neighbor into trying it too, and despite high hopes on his part, he saw no increase.

I also puzzled over how this could be helping mileage. The best I could come up with initially was that perhaps cylinder wall to ring pack friction was being reduced, but for it to be enough to provide the increase I was seeing seemed to be stretching it.

I think I found the answer though when I towed a heavy load with my pickup. When merging onto the highway with that heavy load on an moderate uphill grade, the engine experienced some severe preignition ping/knock that I had never heard before. Retarding the timing by 2 degrees in the high load areas fixed that problem.

I believe that the mileage increase is because of the octane reduction caused by adding oil to gasoline. An engine with safe/conservative ignition timing then benefits from the timing "advance" caused by the added oil. I expect that I could see the same mileage increase by more optimally dialing in the timing.

[nbleak21]

Originally Posted by Ardent

A data point of my own:
...
I believe that the mileage increase is because of the octane reduction caused by adding oil to gasoline. An engine with safe/conservative ignition timing then benefits from the timing "advance" caused by the added oil. I expect that I could see the same mileage increase by more optimally dialing in the timing.

I noticed very similar results in my Acura (2-3mpg gain on longer trips) prior to my VAFC install. I also noted similar gains using ethanol free gas (still 87octane) after my VAFC install, though I've yet to use the combination, as I've been driving the CR-V (replaced my v8 4x4 ram gas guzzler) in order to get a decent baseline on it. Come January I'll have to give it another to around!

[mcrews]

Originally Posted by nbleak21

I noticed very similar results in my Acura (2-3mpg gain on longer trips) prior to my VAFC install. I also noted similar gains using ethanol free gas (still 87octane) after my VAFC install, though I've yet to use the combination, as I've been driving the CR-V (replaced my v8 4x4 ram gas guzzler) in order to get a decent baseline on it. Come January I'll have to give it another to around!

(Sorry for asking)What is VAFC?