EPA does not support FP60...
- Thread starter boxcartommie22
- Start date
- Status
i thought we been told on here that fp60 was supported by the epa?
For normal fuel additives all EPA does is to register the product as OK or no harm, registration means maybe no improvement of any kind just that the enviroment will not be hurt.
bruce
bruce
ok
i really like the products
i really like the products
You guys are really reaching here....the EPA regulates all fuel additives and all fuel additives must be registered by the EPA in order to sell in the US. FP60 is registered, but in no way endorsed by the EPA. No additive is endorsed by the EPA.
We have never claimed that the EPA endorsed FP60. The EPA (like car makers) say to not use fuel additives to cover themselves as most fuel additives are worthless. There are few that have shown anything in terms of fuel economy improvements and FP60 is one of them.
This topic should be deleted.
We have never claimed that the EPA endorsed FP60. The EPA (like car makers) say to not use fuel additives to cover themselves as most fuel additives are worthless. There are few that have shown anything in terms of fuel economy improvements and FP60 is one of them.
This topic should be deleted.
thankyou lcd
I agree, there is no need to bash a product by going straight to the EPA for gods sake
The statement, the EPA does not suport FP60 is true, we do, when we pour it in our gas tanks. And LCD supports us by selling us a no ** product.
True, the EPA does not support FP60, but it does not support any fuel additive. The statement makes it look like it is a suprise that they do not support FP60 and putting up a statement like that puts FP60 in a negative light. It should read 'The EPA does not support any additives, including FP60'
[ June 23, 2006, 08:36 AM: Message edited by: lcd ]
i got this site on the crownvic.net and thought this would be of interest...we can erase this post if it merits
on a site as this one can expect both neg. and positive comments and you are correct i should have rephrased it differently..sorry
Boxcartommie22....I completely agree and expect positive and negative comments about FP60 and LC20...that's the nature of business. Your title just came across like we were an exception and that the EPA supported other additives. Or that the EPA singled FP60 out vs other additives.
EPA can eat my Shorts, just like our fine Outstanding Government!
FP60 and LC20 are 2 Great Products that actually do what they claim too do, and that's all i need to know.
Carry On!!
PFFt!! EPA I best shut up, they might want to Blow Me up as Well!
FP60 and LC20 are 2 Great Products that actually do what they claim too do, and that's all i need to know.
Carry On!!
PFFt!! EPA I best shut up, they might want to Blow Me up as Well!
and i agree with you Syn!!! 500%
Fuel power 60. Please allow me to throw out an anecdotal story about it. I have two big v-twin motorcycle engines that get FP60. One is 2053 cc's, and the manufacturer states to use 90 or higher octane, because of the pinging problems associated with these big combustion chambers. I run 89 Octane and the recommended 1 ounce per 5 gallon rate, and at WOT on much of a 7 mile hillclimb where it was 100 degrees at the bottom, (and the bike was well warmed up, as I had a 115 mile ride to get to the mountain) I get not one ping the entire time. Many people with this engine still report pinging on 93 Octane. I know FP60 is NOT an Octane booster, per se, but, something about it's qualities allows this monster engine to run just fine on lower octane. I'm thinking of trying 87 in it. I got 50 mpg on this trip with this big engine, including the hillclimb. Amazing to me. Maybe I'm just easily amazed.
Titan wrote > I have two big v-twin motorcycle
> engines that get FP60. One is 2053 cc's
2053 cc's? Wow, that is bigger than the motor in my '91 318is (but the 2,053 cc motor still makes less power that my 15 year old stock motor...go figure).
I had to look it up to see who was putting 2,053 cc motors in their bikes, looks like the Kawasaki Vulcan.
Regards,
Rich
> engines that get FP60. One is 2053 cc's
2053 cc's? Wow, that is bigger than the motor in my '91 318is (but the 2,053 cc motor still makes less power that my 15 year old stock motor...go figure).
I had to look it up to see who was putting 2,053 cc motors in their bikes, looks like the Kawasaki Vulcan.
Regards,
Rich
another anecdotal story:
I had a six year old MTD mower with a 6HP B&S engine. I didn't know it, but the reason it was hard to start and didn't run as good as it used to was because the timing key had sheared off. I had to dose it with 1oz of FP60 per tank of gas to allow it to run. Without, it wouldn't even start. With the FP, it would usually run ok, but as it warmed up it sometimes it would make all sorts of disturbing noises that were probably very bad, typically under a heavy load. Some days it was nearly fine.
I got tired of fooling with it, and handed it to my father, who is handy with that kind of thing and correctly identified the problem. He was amazed that it ran at all.
I had a six year old MTD mower with a 6HP B&S engine. I didn't know it, but the reason it was hard to start and didn't run as good as it used to was because the timing key had sheared off. I had to dose it with 1oz of FP60 per tank of gas to allow it to run. Without, it wouldn't even start. With the FP, it would usually run ok, but as it warmed up it sometimes it would make all sorts of disturbing noises that were probably very bad, typically under a heavy load. Some days it was nearly fine.
I got tired of fooling with it, and handed it to my father, who is handy with that kind of thing and correctly identified the problem. He was amazed that it ran at all.
- Status
