I was wondering if Fuel Power would be effective in neutralizing the corrosive effects of ethanol. Maybe Terry is lurking about and can answer this question.
FP and ethanol
- Thread starter SSDude
- Start date
- Status
I have been using Fuel Power with E-85 and it works great. Increased my mileage by 2 mpg. Ethanol is not as corrosive as methanol which was in the fuel back in the gasanol days.
However,Ethanol is not as good of lubricant as unleaded gas. Thats were the FP60 works, it helps keep the valves and guide wear down while running ethanol fuels.
I would like to know what Terry has to say also.
However,Ethanol is not as good of lubricant as unleaded gas. Thats were the FP60 works, it helps keep the valves and guide wear down while running ethanol fuels.
I would like to know what Terry has to say also.
LC,
Thanks for your reply. I have been using FP for awhile now and I was just wondering if FP would prevent ethanol from eating through gas lines and damaging fuel rails.
Thanks for your reply. I have been using FP for awhile now and I was just wondering if FP would prevent ethanol from eating through gas lines and damaging fuel rails.
MolaKule
Staff member
If you were running methanol, you might have gas line corrosion, etc., but FP has cleaning and lubricity agents and is compatible with ethanol.
SSDude, run FP in ethanol fuels for an EFFECTIVE low cost alternative to lack of lubricity and valve regression.
Not to mention the MPG boost in E85. LC is exactly right. Numerous oil analysis customers prove it more and more each day as ethanol becomes more prevalent.
Mola is right, FP has a unique ability to enhance fuel burn with alcohol fuels. Even methanol in racing machines. That verified by UOA and tuning work too.
Not to mention the MPG boost in E85. LC is exactly right. Numerous oil analysis customers prove it more and more each day as ethanol becomes more prevalent.
Mola is right, FP has a unique ability to enhance fuel burn with alcohol fuels. Even methanol in racing machines. That verified by UOA and tuning work too.
FP in both forms, "trick" the flame propogation into reacting as if they are octane boosters, at a certain level, allowing many gas engine users to drop a notch in octane levels of the host fuel.
In the latest chemistries of the products they are not by strict definition of the words "octane boosters".
Hope that helps because thats bout all I can say.
In the latest chemistries of the products they are not by strict definition of the words "octane boosters".
Hope that helps because thats bout all I can say.
Terry:
Is the language in your last "both forms" a reference to the alcohol fuels, or are you referring to different versions of FP? I was wondering if the change from "Fuel Power" to FP60 signalled a chemistry change, or was just a marketing tweak?
Is the language in your last "both forms" a reference to the alcohol fuels, or are you referring to different versions of FP? I was wondering if the change from "Fuel Power" to FP60 signalled a chemistry change, or was just a marketing tweak?
Woah! When Terry says
It'd only save me a buck or two each tank-full, but it might be worth trying to see if the mileage doesn't drop too much...
I take it I could drop from premium to mid-grade in my truck that "requires premium fuel for best performance"? (Infiniti QX4)
It'd only save me a buck or two each tank-full, but it might be worth trying to see if the mileage doesn't drop too much...
Blake, I'd certainly say it's worth a shot.
My three vehicles all had a significant bump up in mpg that coincided with use of FP. It COULD be other factors that are contributing to the increased mpg. But, I'm using FP and the cheapest busy-station fuel I can get...and I'm very happy with my current vehicle's performance. Have a big twin motorcycle that tends to ping under load when it's hot, and higher anti-knock index fuel is recommended...I use 87 and FP...no pings. Throttle response feels great. Subaru 2.5 engines, one manual driven by me, one auto, driven by my wife, both get better city, and almost unheard of highway mpg. Not scientific, just my experience.
My three vehicles all had a significant bump up in mpg that coincided with use of FP. It COULD be other factors that are contributing to the increased mpg. But, I'm using FP and the cheapest busy-station fuel I can get...and I'm very happy with my current vehicle's performance. Have a big twin motorcycle that tends to ping under load when it's hot, and higher anti-knock index fuel is recommended...I use 87 and FP...no pings. Throttle response feels great. Subaru 2.5 engines, one manual driven by me, one auto, driven by my wife, both get better city, and almost unheard of highway mpg. Not scientific, just my experience.
I tend to think that this scenario is likely one of the best to take advantage of the lower AKI fuel in an engine that does not "require" 91AKI except to obtain best performance. Toyota, Nissan and I think Honda have been increasingly defining engines in this way. eg run 87 AKI by default but if you run 91AKI the computer will adjust timing to take advantage.
Worst case scenario with that engine using FP60 and 87 is normal performance plus the advantages of FP60. I don't think that you would see mileage drop. I have never seen mileage increases from using higher octane fuel.
The situation where dropping grade may not be advisable is my summer car situation, a Turbocharged Porsche that requires 91 AKI. Probably a bad idea to drop down to 87AKI even with FP60. But I run 87 with FP60 in my other cars.
- Status
Similar threads
