I kind of like the idea of running a bit of upper cylinder lube in the engine, maybe not every tank but perhaps every month or so. Just curious if there are any concerns with UCL and premature aging of catalytic converters ?. I'm not referring to any specific brand, but rather the overall question of UCL in general. My thinking is that UCL is mostly an oil and oil might not always burn 100 percent leading to deposits heading out the exhaust manifold through the cat. Any opinions would be interesting, thanks.
Any Concerns -Upper Cyl. Lube and Cat. Converters?
- Thread starter JSRT4
- Start date
- Status
A low or zero "ash" UCL would be best as far as chemistry. Just don't over-do it and run the recommended dose should give best results.
JTK
$100 Site Donor 2025
Hard to say if there would be any long term effect on CCs. My guess would be nothing measurable provided you ran recommended dosages.
Joel
Joel
Use LUCAS. Nothing in it but light oils and some calcium. Works great and won't harm your emission components, even if overdosed.
Originally Posted By: StevieC
Use LUCAS. Nothing in it but light oils and some calcium. Works great and won't harm your emission components, even if overdosed.
so the light oils would have a high level of combustion much like fuel ?, such that deposits don't escape the exhaust much ? . thanks for all of the replies.
Use LUCAS. Nothing in it but light oils and some calcium. Works great and won't harm your emission components, even if overdosed.
so the light oils would have a high level of combustion much like fuel ?, such that deposits don't escape the exhaust much ? . thanks for all of the replies.
It's because it has such light oils it combusts completely in the engine. It also has some calcium in it to keep the areas it is passing over clean.
It does wonders for making injectors and fuel pumps quiet. I really like their product.
You can also mix it with some MMO or other UCL's / Fuel system cleaners.
It does wonders for making injectors and fuel pumps quiet. I really like their product.
You can also mix it with some MMO or other UCL's / Fuel system cleaners.
FPPLUS too.
I have an 88 E-150 that has been fed MMO as a UCL since new. I've used an Inverse Oiler on it since about 1990 give or take. I just took the Inverse Oiler off because it wasn't metering properly, and started adding MMO via the gas tank. Long story short, the original cat converter is still on that bad boy and is fine according to the mechanic who does the NYS Inspections on it.
As a side note that engine has seen MMO either in the gas tank or via the Inverse Oiler since day one [+/-] maybe 2 tanks of gas.
As a side note that engine has seen MMO either in the gas tank or via the Inverse Oiler since day one [+/-] maybe 2 tanks of gas.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I have an 88 E-150 that has been fed MMO as a UCL since new. I've used an Inverse Oiler on it since about 1990 give or take. I just took the Inverse Oiler off because it wasn't metering properly, and started adding MMO via the gas tank. Long story short, the original cat converter is still on that bad boy and is fine according to the mechanic who does the NYS Inspections on it.
As a side note that engine has seen MMO either in the gas tank or via the Inverse Oiler since day one [+/-] maybe 2 tanks of gas.
Great info, that is good to know, sounds like a pretty good experience.
I have an 88 E-150 that has been fed MMO as a UCL since new. I've used an Inverse Oiler on it since about 1990 give or take. I just took the Inverse Oiler off because it wasn't metering properly, and started adding MMO via the gas tank. Long story short, the original cat converter is still on that bad boy and is fine according to the mechanic who does the NYS Inspections on it.
As a side note that engine has seen MMO either in the gas tank or via the Inverse Oiler since day one [+/-] maybe 2 tanks of gas.
Great info, that is good to know, sounds like a pretty good experience.
I consider of cat contamination because I usually use a top end oil -
MMO, TCW3, or Lucas UCL.
At recommended dosage rates, it is like burning / using a qt of engine oil every 3,000 miles or so.
For many cars , this would equate to a qt in 2,000 miles, because of faster gasoline consumption in larger vehicles.
But even if it was unsuitable engine oil through the cat, these rates don't seem to hurt cats.
With suitable clean burning top end oil additives, the situation is much better.
So in the real world, we are OK!
MMO, TCW3, or Lucas UCL.
At recommended dosage rates, it is like burning / using a qt of engine oil every 3,000 miles or so.
For many cars , this would equate to a qt in 2,000 miles, because of faster gasoline consumption in larger vehicles.
But even if it was unsuitable engine oil through the cat, these rates don't seem to hurt cats.
With suitable clean burning top end oil additives, the situation is much better.
So in the real world, we are OK!
Originally Posted By: elwaylite
FPPLUS too.
Forgot about that...
That or DSFM for those who know what it is... Those who don't can see Terry for it.
FPPLUS too.
Forgot about that...
That or DSFM for those who know what it is... Those who don't can see Terry for it.
Yeah. I just sent in my first analysis to Terry, so I'll be asking about DSFM soon.
Originally Posted By: JSRT4
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I have an 88 E-150 that has been fed MMO as a UCL since new. I've used an Inverse Oiler on it since about 1990 give or take. I just took the Inverse Oiler off because it wasn't metering properly, and started adding MMO via the gas tank. Long story short, the original cat converter is still on that bad boy and is fine according to the mechanic who does the NYS Inspections on it.
As a side note that engine has seen MMO either in the gas tank or via the Inverse Oiler since day one [+/-] maybe 2 tanks of gas.
Great info, that is good to know, sounds like a pretty good experience.
Thanks. My 93 Aerostar has about 178,000 miles on it now, original cat, and I'm embarassed to say the original 02 sensor. Last year when I had the NYS inspection done I asked the mechanic if I needed a tune up. The plugs cap and wires had about 80,000 miles on them. He said the it runs great leave it alone! I've added another 12,000 miles to that figure this year so far. This engine has been treated with MMO in the gas since ~ 50,000 miles when I bought it. Previous owner didn't change the cat or 02 sensor.
I also use about 1 qt of oil/3500 miles in this engine. That plus the MMO and no cat or 02 sensor issues.
Should I break down and throw in an 02 sensor? LOL
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I have an 88 E-150 that has been fed MMO as a UCL since new. I've used an Inverse Oiler on it since about 1990 give or take. I just took the Inverse Oiler off because it wasn't metering properly, and started adding MMO via the gas tank. Long story short, the original cat converter is still on that bad boy and is fine according to the mechanic who does the NYS Inspections on it.
As a side note that engine has seen MMO either in the gas tank or via the Inverse Oiler since day one [+/-] maybe 2 tanks of gas.
Great info, that is good to know, sounds like a pretty good experience.
Thanks. My 93 Aerostar has about 178,000 miles on it now, original cat, and I'm embarassed to say the original 02 sensor. Last year when I had the NYS inspection done I asked the mechanic if I needed a tune up. The plugs cap and wires had about 80,000 miles on them. He said the it runs great leave it alone! I've added another 12,000 miles to that figure this year so far. This engine has been treated with MMO in the gas since ~ 50,000 miles when I bought it. Previous owner didn't change the cat or 02 sensor.
I also use about 1 qt of oil/3500 miles in this engine. That plus the MMO and no cat or 02 sensor issues.
Should I break down and throw in an 02 sensor? LOL
Originally Posted By: elwaylite
Yeah. I just sent in my first analysis to Terry, so I'll be asking about DSFM soon.
It's excellent stuff and I use it regularly... Well when I'm not experimenting with Lucas, MMO or TCW3.
Yeah. I just sent in my first analysis to Terry, so I'll be asking about DSFM soon.
It's excellent stuff and I use it regularly... Well when I'm not experimenting with Lucas, MMO or TCW3.
I'm currently weening myself off of MMO and switching to FPPlus in my 2004 S2000. I was using MMO at 4oz/10gal with great results for quieting valvetrain noise on start-up. The recommended dose of 1oz/10gal for FPPlus wouldn't touch those noises. But 4oz/10gal of FPPlus does very nicely.
I plan to trim the dosage back some to see where the sweet spot is though. 4oz/10gal of FPPlus will get pretty expensive after awhile.
I plan to trim the dosage back some to see where the sweet spot is though. 4oz/10gal of FPPlus will get pretty expensive after awhile.
Any reason for the change? Or are you just testing the waters. I just added some TCW-3 to my E-150 instead of the diet of MMO it has been feed since I bought it in late 1987. I wanted to try a change, I did it briefly in my Aerostar and wasn't totally impressed and switched back to MMO. I want to see how a bigger engine responds to the TCW-3, and have about 3.5 gallons of the stuff to burn up.
I'm wondering if the thicker TCW-3 will coat the cyl walls better than the thinner MMO for the winter months? And if it does will it matter? I guess we can only speculate, because I won't be ripping into an engine to find out.
I'm wondering if the thicker TCW-3 will coat the cyl walls better than the thinner MMO for the winter months? And if it does will it matter? I guess we can only speculate, because I won't be ripping into an engine to find out.
I still think TCW-3 and FPPLus are safer choices. Both will not leave the potential by product that MMO will (as found in Terry's test).
I know I know, people have been running it for years. That still does mean it burns as clean as the other two. Another thing I like about FPPLUS is its BIO.
I know I know, people have been running it for years. That still does mean it burns as clean as the other two. Another thing I like about FPPLUS is its BIO.
I see your point, and respect it. No disrespect to Terry D, but I take the test results with a grain of salt. Especially after having spent time on this board and trying to learn the secrets of the used oil analysis, but that's another story.
I prefer real world results from actual use in the field. I plan on seeing for myself how the E-150 responds to the TCW-3, and if it is better then I have no problem making the change.
I prefer real world results from actual use in the field. I plan on seeing for myself how the E-150 responds to the TCW-3, and if it is better then I have no problem making the change.
I dont disagree, especially on UOA interpretation, but Terry got down to the nitty gritty in a VOA. Some of the things it has are a emissions concern. Big concern, prob not, but a guy who does it for a living recommended using something else.
Nuff for me.
Big picture is, all the people not running UCL of any kind getting great life outta their cars. We are just nerds
Nuff for me.
Big picture is, all the people not running UCL of any kind getting great life outta their cars. We are just nerds
Originally Posted By: elwaylite
We are just nerds
Nerds with a lot of time on their hands!
We are just nerds
Nerds with a lot of time on their hands!
- Status
Similar threads
