Has anyone ever seen actual dyno proof of additive gains?

[jtay2024]

So, as in the title really. I see so many claims of fuel system cleaners saying "Restores power" etc etc, but I have never seen anyone successfully prove these claims, whether that's long term or short term while the "cleaner" is in the tank.

Does anyone here actually know of any proven cleaners / additive that actually make a noticable difference?

 

[ctechbob]

Grassroots Motorsports did a test of EFS Combust maybe 10 years ago that showed a several HP improvement. I don't know if that was ever debunked or analyzed further, but they were as surprised as any when they ran the test. (Or even if they stuff is even for sale anymore, this was circa 2014)

EDIT:

Someone actually scanned the article:

Grassroots Motorsports Magazine test EFS Combust......read results! - TeamDI

GRM shows results of their dyno test of EFS Combust in their May issue.

www.teamdi.com

 

[adams355]

Here is a couple from Australia a few years back on engine oil difference on dyno (which is sort of additive)

 

[Dennywires]

That’s what 93+ octane fuel is for.

 

[kschachn]

A noticeable difference in what exactly? If it is fuel economy then a dynamometer test is not the tool for the job, you would use a standardized test (and engine) such as ASTM D8114 or D6837 for that. These tests help to eliminate the many variables that exist even in a carefully controlled whole-vehicle dynamometer run.

If it is a power gain then even there if you are trying to establish a relatively small gain one would use a bare engine in a test, not necessarily the entire vehicle.

Dynamometer runs are good for some things and they are visually impressive for the Internet crowd. But if you are really trying to prove something you isolate as many variables as possible so that your results are statistically valid.

 

[nomas]

That’s what 93+ octane fuel is for.

For what ?

 

[kschachn]

Another intractable problem is that many of these additives claim "improvement" when used in an engine that is deficient somehow, such as with combustion chamber or valve deposits. In other words they improve things by "cleaning" the engine. There is no way to quantify an already dirty engine such that you can have a level playing field in terms of your starting point.

 

[RDY4WAR]

I've used a few fuel additives, in the maximum concentration recommended, in drag cars. I have never seen a substantiatable ET or MPH improvement with any of them. Going from E0 to E10 made a bigger difference at the same 93 AKI.

 

[Davejam]

I don't think additives will do anything for performance. I look at additives as more preventative maintanance.
The additives claiming Octane boost are boosting octane by insignificant amounts (0.1 maybe 0.2).
Maybe a small amount of friction modification could impact dyno performance.

 

[BigCahuna]

But tests have shown significant gains in hp and torque !!!!

 

[ARCOgraphite]

So, as in the title really. I see so many claims of fuel system cleaners saying "Restores power" etc etc, but I have never seen anyone successfully prove these claims, whether that's long term or short term while the "cleaner" is in the tank.

Does anyone here actually know of any proven cleaners / additive that actually make a noticable difference?

Super shell gasoline with Platformate allowed cars to go father without running dry. I've seen 8mm film poof of cars going 50 ft farther!

Other than that a can of COX Glow Fuel added to the tank might do something;
Nitromethane, you know. Methanol though also- uggh! Forget it!

 

[NitroM3]

I have not seen anyone post complete data informational on DYNO testing procedures which include the DELTA's used by the DYNO operator for base line and repeated tests for confirmation or comparison test results.
I am currently testing a "Metal Treatment" that was given to me by a company to test. It not my first time testing a so called metal engine treatment. My first was waaaaaay back when Slick 50 was the to get treatment. Well we all know how that worked out. LOL

 

[JohnnyG]

How about NO!

 

[kschachn]

I have not seen anyone post complete data informational on DYNO testing procedures which include the DELTA's used by the DYNO operator for base line and repeated tests for confirmation or comparison test results.
I am currently testing a "Metal Treatment" that was given to me by a company to test. It not my first time testing a so called metal engine treatment. My first was waaaaaay back when Slick 50 was the to get treatment. Well we all know how that worked out. LOL

To test for what?

 

[NitroM3]

I've used a few fuel additives, in the maximum concentration recommended, in drag cars. I have never seen a substantiatable ET or MPH improvement with any of them. Going from E0 to E10 made a bigger difference at the same 93 AKI.

Why would you do this in the first place? Adding fuel additives make for inconsistencies in your times? I guess you were a a for the fun Drag racer on Wednesday(or what ever day your local drag strip was open for..) night high school drags??

 

[y_p_w]

Not sure how anyone would really go about that. However, if there are gunked up intake valves and/or clogged injectors, that would like result in performance degradation. So at the very least it would likely improve performance once everything is clean. But if everything is already at a state where it's ideal, it's only going to be preventative.

 

[NitroM3]

A noticeable difference in what exactly? If it is fuel economy then a dynamometer test is not the tool for the job, you would use a standardized test (and engine) such as ASTM D8114 or D6837 for that. These tests help to eliminate the many variables that exist even in a carefully controlled whole-vehicle dynamometer run.

If it is a power gain then even there if you are trying to establish a relatively small gain one would use a bare engine in a test, not necessarily the entire vehicle.

Dynamometer runs are good for some things and they are visually impressive for the Internet crowd. But if you are really trying to prove something you isolate as many variables as possible so that your results are statistically valid.

I could not have worded this better!!!

I have to call BS on most all these so called DYNO testing.

Here is the thing .... I owned and operated 1 chassis, 1 portable chassis and an engine DYNO as well work for a shop to do their DYNO testing...
I pride myself on carefully setting up the DYNO program so I can repeat all the perimeters for a solid comparison accurate and more realistic result with NO SAE smoothing. Often I would have people at car shows grumble that my results were not really waht thier engine can do because i was always lower then what their local guy Dyno'd their vehicle. Hey you slip me a 50 and I will give you any DYNO you want. LOL

 

[NitroM3]

To test for what?

Well that's the question isn't it? Test for something different, I am sure the company is hoping I find an improvement? BTW I also even test the decibels at different area's of the engine and exhaust system. And will have the oil analyses by Blackstone oil Labs.
Things I can't test are if there is any changes in bearing or contact wear like valve train components. In other words I ain't tearing down my engine and run metal evolution testing that I would need to send parts out to have that done.

 

[Dennywires]

For what ?

Big hp/torque gains. Lol jk

at least Ford tends to think so… advertising +/- 3% higher output in their hp and torque figures.

 

[RDY4WAR]

Why would you do this in the first place? Adding fuel additives make for inconsistencies in your times? I guess you were a a for the fun Drag racer on Wednesday(or what ever day your local drag strip was open for..) night high school drags??

It was mostly curiosity. They were dedicated track cars, but was on T&T nights. The marketing claimed xx tq and hp increase so I would use it at the max recommended concentration to get the full effect. Comparing times to straight pump gas in similar weather conditions with tuning, I found absolutely no difference. I did air/fuel ratio and spark timing sweeps to see if it wanted something different and it didn't. It liked the same AFR, same spark timing, and ran the same ET and MPH. One engine was a 10.5:1 AFR headed 347ci SBF and the other was a 10:1 compression turbocharged 4 cylinder. No difference in either one.