FP/LC observations

XS650 · Oct 3, 2004

This was a tough one for LC/FP. The car ran extremely well and got good fuel mileage before I added the magic elixors.

I've had LC at 1 oz/qt and FP at 1 oz/5 gallons in my car for 1151 Miles

Car is a 1996 LT4 Corvette, 5.7L V8
50,011 miles. Finished an ARx cycle at 48,850 miles.

Also 1151miles on Mobil 1 10w30. Started using LC/FP at this oil change.

Just completed a 790 mile highway trip.

Drivability, smoothness etc: No noticable difference.
Power: No noticable difference
Fuel economy: 26.9 mpg on outbound portion of trip, 26.6 on return. This is essentially the same as before during and after ARx treatment. No change. The car has always gotten up to right around 27 mpg on a long highway run cruising in low 70 mph range.

Oil consumption was 0 before: May still be zero. Will check tomorrow to compare with my baseline cold oil level reading.

I will be getting another UOA when I get 6,000 miles on this combo.

The exhaust pipe tip I cleaned before the trip is cleaner than the uncleaned tip. Less soot. I can't tell if that is because it only has 790 miles worth of exhaust compared to 50,011 miles on the other tip... or is something good actually going on?

Marco Esquandoles · Oct 3, 2004

I'd hope the exhaust pipe with less miles would have less soot.

IMO That's not a fair comparison.

XS650 · Oct 3, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by Marco Esquandoles:
I'd hope the exhaust pipe with less miles would have less soot.

IMO That's not a fair comparison.

It was an observation with a question at the end.

Less soot is one of their claims. How would you make a valid comparison?

LCD · Oct 3, 2004

Best way, regarding the soot is to run a detailed emissions test before and after LC/FP and see the readings of the CO and NOx (main contributors to the soot buildup).

427Z06 · Oct 3, 2004

Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas and oxides of nitrogen don't have any carbon in them.

XS650 · Oct 3, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by 427Z06:
Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas and oxides of nitrogen don't have any carbon in them.

I noticed that too.

LCD · Oct 3, 2004

If those emissions are reduced it will mean you have less carbon build up and soot build up.

ekpolk · Oct 4, 2004

I have already had an objectively noticeable good experience with FP. It almost totally eliminated persistent ping I had in my last car. On the other hand, I've got a six week old G35, with "only" 4,700 miles on it, which has gotten FP since its first tank, and I've already got mild soot in the tailpipes. Hmmmmmmm. I just changed the oil this weekend, and added LC to this fill. From what I've heard, I should not be seeing any soot, especially this early. No other signs of difficulty. Any thoughts or comments?

427Z06 · Oct 4, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by lcd:
If those emissions are reduced it will mean you have less carbon build up and soot build up.

OK, fair enough. A better wording might of been those emissions are "indicators", not "contributors".

LCD · Oct 4, 2004

427Z06, you're right, better wording would clear it up.

ekpolk... it is crucial that LC is used along with FP to minimize the soot. There are other factors that can contributoe to soot, but generally by using these 2 products it should be minimal compared to not using them.

wn1998 · Oct 4, 2004

Why is everyone so concerned with soot? From what I have gained there are many factors that contribute to soot.
My tailpipe has absolutely no soot at all because I use an additive called "CR" otherwise known as "China made red shop rags". I got them at autozone. I think they were $5 for a pack of 30. I get them wet and wipe out my tailpipe once a month or so and all that soot dissapears. I have heard the ones made in America are not as absorbent so you might want to go stockpile these rags before they are sold out!

Last_Z · Oct 4, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by lcd:
If those emissions are reduced it will mean you have less carbon build up and soot build up.

My tail pipes soot up much more with use of FP. This might not necessarily be a bad thing. A possible theory of mine is that the extra amount of carbon I see in the pipes is coming from the combustion chambers. In other words, FP could be removing carbon from the chambers and depositing it on the exhaust pipes.

Just a thought and definitely a different experience to those with clean pipes.

EDIT: Just a suggestion. IF I was an LC/FP dealer I would NOT tell customers of the products cleaning tail pipes. In my opinion, such claim is almost impossible, since all you would have going through the pipes is gas. I don't think exhaust gases would clean pipes up.......I just don't see the mechanics of it.
Anyway......the customer might have a similar experience to mine and give up on a perfectly good product........just because it didn't clean up his tail pipes.

[ October 04, 2004, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: Last_Z ]

XS650 · Oct 4, 2004

quote:

Originally posted by wn1998:
Why is everyone so concerned with soot? From what I have gained there are many factors that contribute to soot.

A little tailpipe soot doesn't make any difference to me either, but product performance claims do. IIRC, FP has been represented as reducing tailpipe soot in this forum.

To FP/LC's credit, I don't believe their website makes that claim.

ekpolk · Oct 4, 2004

It really doesn't matter to me, per se, either. My car, as much as I get into it (oh, bad pun there), is a transportation device. A fast and costly one, but ultimately it's there to move me from A to B, not to display a shiny exhaust pipe.

That said, I admit that I'm both curious and compulsive. Now that my G has both FP in the gas and LC in the crankcase (along with what will probably be its last fill of pre-GC dino), I'm going out right now and will carefully swab out the last six inches or so of my dual tips.

And we'll let the chips fall where they may. Regardless of the results, I still think FP is good stuff; as I said, it quelled the ping in my last car. On my way outside right now, rag in hand. . .

LCD · Oct 4, 2004

I claimed it will reduce soot on the tail pipe, and probably shouldn't have as it has caused a stir.

I will not clean up an already dirty tail pipe (unless maybe you soak it in FP

, but will reduce the amount of soot over the long term.

Like Last Z said he is experienceing more soot which I agree is most likely because it is being cleaned and pushed out the system. Eventually I would bet it decreases.

ekpolk · Oct 4, 2004

UPDATE: The time to inspect one's tailpipe, if you're going to bother (

) is at night, with a flashlight. The G35 has one muffler with dual tips (not sure of what's further upstream). Looking at it with a flashlight in the dark, when you can really see because your eyes are not adjusted to surrounding daylight, there was a lot less carbon than I would have thought looking at my smudged finger. I still wiped out a fair bit on the cloth I used, but I could see well into the muffler body, and the dominant impression was of metal that had been really hot vs. sooty blackness. There's some there, for sure, but overall, pretty clean looking. Anyway, now with clean tailpipe tips, we can see what the FP, LC, Havoline oil, and G35 combo produces over the next few tanks full.

FP/LC observations

Similar threads