| The following warnings occurred: | ||||||||||||
Warning [2] Undefined variable $search_thread - Line: 60 - File: showthread.php(1617) : eval()'d code PHP 8.1.31 (Linux)
|
|
Fuel Catalyst
|
23-10-2018, 05:37 PM
What is the collective wisdom on the benefits (or even needs) of fuel additives (e.g. Redex) versus say one of these thingies which apparently does a better job and will never need replacing? Well they claim 100,000 miles which in my Austin 7 is like infinity.
23-10-2018, 07:12 PM
Austin 7 engines were around before lead was added to fuel, so a true unleaded engine.
I am not sure anyone has come up with a good reason for fuel additives. The only ongoing question I know of is one of the affect of new fuels and again I think the jury is out, with redex etc not the obvious answer in any case. As for the use of 'anal beads' in an A7 engine, please send the the appropriate sum if money and I will send you some lumps of lead to put in your fuel tank by return  Andy B
Enjoy yourself, it's later than you think!
23-10-2018, 07:22 PM
I think you could argue a logical case for ethanolmate (n.b. when the car is laid up) or valve seat protector - but these things - no.
23-10-2018, 07:22 PM
The lecturer who taught chemistry to 1st year engineers at Dundee University in the 60s used to rage against upper cylinder lubricant.
He had spent his working life eliminating sulphur from fuel and said these lubricants were putting it all back in!
Jim
23-10-2018, 07:45 PM
(23-10-2018, 05:37 PM)e-richard Wrote: What is the collective wisdom on the benefits (or even needs) of fuel additives (e.g. Redex) versus say one of these thingies which apparently does a better job and will never need replacing? Well they claim 100,000 miles which in my Austin 7 is like infinity. "These thingies" which are tin amalgam chunks have been on the market for a considerable time. I have, over the years, researched such information that I could find regarding SCIENTIFIC PROOF that these things actually did any good. I could find no authenticated evidence that these products are anything other than a scam with advertising carefully worded to avoid making any claims that might result in prosecution. If this junk was any good every car manufacturer in the world would put some in the tank of every new car sold. Only my opinion but, save your money, it's another version of "snake oil".
23-10-2018, 07:50 PM
(23-10-2018, 07:45 PM)Ian McGowan Wrote:(23-10-2018, 05:37 PM)e-richard Wrote: What is the collective wisdom on the benefits (or even needs) of fuel additives (e.g. Redex) versus say one of these thingies which apparently does a better job and will never need replacing? Well they claim 100,000 miles which in my Austin 7 is like infinity. Yes, these were discussed in the first year of my own engineering degree and I was struggling to remember the argument against them but then realised there isn't one, because there is simply no science to argue with. 
23-10-2018, 08:11 PM
My Uncle loves additives, he put this, that and the other in his engine oils, is always raving about how good the oil pressure on his different cars, puts all sorts in the petrol and worries about ethanol - I am the opposite, just use what comes out of the pump or can, manufacturers have spent a long time perfecting their product so I don't really want to spoil their brew, the only concession I have made to ethanol is a "stayup" float in the SU carburettor and 100% ethanol proof to the sealant in the petrol tank.
If these additives were as good as they claim to be, surely, the fuel manufacturers would add this to their blend???
23-10-2018, 08:48 PM
A colleague used to work in a garage. When cutomers asked for Redex they got a shot of Shell oil which was similarly red. The rate of cyl wear with modern engine oils is wondrously reduced compared non additive oils of 1930s/40s
I have for decades run a low geared 1600cc Hillman. I do two or three 800 mile return trips each year in addition to more local running. The car is held around a true 60mph. When lead was removed I used one of the additves but these became very expensive so I dropped. Slight recession of one valve occurs; maybe .002/3 per 10,000. Recently fitted an earlier head with seats recut to new size so it wont be a problem in my lifetime! Many factors determine recession. At one stage my Javelin on lead could lose all clearance in 200 miles! Yet later on CNG almost none. The local quack pellet additve was Fuelstar. Despite tests by the AA which showed it did not stop or slow recession, it was promoted with glowing references from major operators for decades. Even the army fell for it. Other combustion benefits were claimed, including for diesels (in which the combustion process is quite opposite!) The promoter got older and the establishment of a Serious Fraud Office must have been a worry so the product faded. For over 40 years I have written a technical article for every issue of the NZ Jowett mag. In that time I have had only one complaint (and that despite several members being Poms). I rubbished Fuelstar and a convert took offence!
23-10-2018, 09:23 PM
I love when you ask a question and get such consistent and unambiguous answers. You guys rock.
While Chemistry was never my forte at school, intuitively I felt that messing around with the stuff that comes out of the pumps was just a waste of time, but wasn't sure if it was harmful.
25-10-2018, 03:36 AM
The EPA in America do tests on all sorts of fuel additives and devices and so on. Fascinating reading: https://www.epa.gov/vehicle-and-engine-c...it-devices
They have a summary page here: https://www.epa.gov/vehicle-and-engine-c...it-devices I think basically they say that, in years of testing, have never found anything that makes any marked improvement to fuel economy when it comes to devices/additives. Even people you would think would know better get taken in. Peter Brock famously promoted his polariser device: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Brock Simon |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
