I'm bored already and thinking of a new test...
- Thread starter Aaron
- Start date
- Status
Well the test is meaningless then, IMHO, since that's not what directions say on the bottle of FP, and how many people actually use it that way?
I did. And, still do.
I love my FP, but do we really need another test?
Granted, it would be nice to have more proof.
Personally, I'd rather you run Lucas for a while, prove it doesn't work! Then run FP to prove it does.
Like they said, what are you going to do when it's all clean?
Granted, it would be nice to have more proof.
Personally, I'd rather you run Lucas for a while, prove it doesn't work! Then run FP to prove it does.
Like they said, what are you going to do when it's all clean?
I'm not aware of any proof, where is all the proof you mention?
There's been plenty of personal testimony.
Here's pics of my results:
http://www.dantheoilman.com/images/valveclean.jpg
http://www.dantheoilman.com/images/valvedirty.jpg
The side that gets sprayed by the injector is clean and the other side is dirty. Not bad for a 143k mile car that has only had about 6000 or 7000 miles of FP.
Sadly, I couldn't get pics of the valves themselves, but they looked clean from where I was leaning over the car.
And I'm not saying don't do FP, but I'd like him to prove Lucas doesn't work before he proves that FP does.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
I kinda agree with 427ZO6 here. Very few people are going to do the piston soak. If this is the test ...then it tells very little on how FP performs as it is typically used.
There are a number of combustion chamber cleaning techniques and agents that are quite effective without doing a piston soak. That is, this will prove more about the technique than it will the product.
The same could be said for intake valve deposits. The agents, all of various compositions and concentrations, hit the back side of the hot intake valve to do their tasks.
The main differences in effectiveness, in my experience, is how much or how long you use a given product.
FP is sold as a perpetual additive ..being in use constantly.
This is how it should be tested.
Your test will show if a piston soak is an effective technique.
There are a number of combustion chamber cleaning techniques and agents that are quite effective without doing a piston soak. That is, this will prove more about the technique than it will the product.
The same could be said for intake valve deposits. The agents, all of various compositions and concentrations, hit the back side of the hot intake valve to do their tasks.
The main differences in effectiveness, in my experience, is how much or how long you use a given product.
FP is sold as a perpetual additive ..being in use constantly.
This is how it should be tested.
Your test will show if a piston soak is an effective technique.
Would agree FP as fuel cleaner by itself. LC/FP combo might be more effecive as they work as a combo. But the test is for a fuel cleaner itself as Neutra, FP or Lucas UCL. Would like to see what each cleaner can do and have objective opinions on the test as far what it does to the engine oil causing a negative performance.
One last thing before I get back to work.
As I said, it would seem that that majority want to see FP in action as opposed to Neutra. At this point I just need the FP rep to give the go ahead and detail the testing procedure. So maybe someone can poke him with a stick and get him to respond.
Otherwise I can go with Neutra which already has it's representative willing to go ahead with a test.
Yet another EDIT: I just noticed that there is a phone number on the Lube Control site. I'll see if I can't reach Odis Beaver today and get his approval for a test.
Oh, and for anybody that wants to know. Just like with my ARX test I don't want the product to be donated. I fully expect to pay for it as I don't want any test I do to be for compensation in any way shape or form. Keeps it honest that way.
[ February 22, 2005, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]
As I said, it would seem that that majority want to see FP in action as opposed to Neutra. At this point I just need the FP rep to give the go ahead and detail the testing procedure. So maybe someone can poke him with a stick and get him to respond.
Otherwise I can go with Neutra which already has it's representative willing to go ahead with a test.
Yet another EDIT: I just noticed that there is a phone number on the Lube Control site. I'll see if I can't reach Odis Beaver today and get his approval for a test.
Oh, and for anybody that wants to know. Just like with my ARX test I don't want the product to be donated. I fully expect to pay for it as I don't want any test I do to be for compensation in any way shape or form. Keeps it honest that way.
[ February 22, 2005, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]
I agree... skip the piston soak. The product (FP)claims it will clean valves and CCs without it, so I feel it would be "cheating" to do a soak.
Sorry, that's not proof in my book. The scientific community wouldn't go through all the trouble of using placebos if there wasn't a good reason.
What I see is one dark intake port wall and one shiny intake port wall, and they're are not even of the same cylinder. And for all we know, you could of gotten a tank of gasoline with a high level of cleaning agent right before you dismantled the engine. What about the ALL the valves and ALL the combustion chambers?
I'm not trying to discredit FP, I actually hope it does some good cause I'm testing it myself right now. But if you really want to run a test that has an inkling of proof associated with it, one really needs to read up on "the design of experiments" to establish some good testing methodology.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,799
Well, since conclusive proof is very hard to establish given the differences in deposits from one engine to another ...one cause or another...
Pehaps we could agree on a testing modality that would add "suggestive" data of higher weight.
If I wanted to prove to myself that FP worked ...and had a borascope and the will to document it....I'd do a before image ...and then shock dose it (at the recommended strength) repeatedly until I saw results (a change). This would prove that the effectivness of the product is possible in some method of usage (and one could infer that it had been effective with ONE shock does to some degree). I would then continue at the normal rate of usage and monitor the deposits over a long span of miles (like 10k) and take another peek. If I saw no reasonable change ..I would increase the dosage by some increment and continue for another 10k.
This wouldn't prove that the product work as described/directed. It would only prove that it was effective (or not) the way I used it. Even Auto-Rx had to modify its instructions to accomodate synthetic oils after encountering so many that used it. I would think that FP is a product that probably would not work in all cases as directed. For that matter ..there are few that do.
Pehaps we could agree on a testing modality that would add "suggestive" data of higher weight.
If I wanted to prove to myself that FP worked ...and had a borascope and the will to document it....I'd do a before image ...and then shock dose it (at the recommended strength) repeatedly until I saw results (a change). This would prove that the effectivness of the product is possible in some method of usage (and one could infer that it had been effective with ONE shock does to some degree). I would then continue at the normal rate of usage and monitor the deposits over a long span of miles (like 10k) and take another peek. If I saw no reasonable change ..I would increase the dosage by some increment and continue for another 10k.
This wouldn't prove that the product work as described/directed. It would only prove that it was effective (or not) the way I used it. Even Auto-Rx had to modify its instructions to accomodate synthetic oils after encountering so many that used it. I would think that FP is a product that probably would not work in all cases as directed. For that matter ..there are few that do.
Considering that not everyone wants to see Lube Control used along with Fuel Power in a cleaning test for combustion chamber and intake valve deposits I have decided to go with Neutra for the test.
The product has been ordered and I hope to have a web page up by this weekend with initial pics of the test engine.
The product has been ordered and I hope to have a web page up by this weekend with initial pics of the test engine.
Kinda' depends on the testing methodology doesn't it? I.e., if one can see the test is rigged from the get go, I believe an intelligent person would highly discount the results, no matter who produced them.
I think the real issue here is whether something is "evidence" or "proof". A well thought out test can provide evidence for, against or a null result. It's not until the results are independently repeated a sufficient number of times under sufficient controls do we start calling something proof.
I agree. But in science, the test methodology, controls/protocol, sample size, statistics, calculations are peer reviewed or the publication is considered to hold little weight on the subject at hand. It's sad that the average person doesn't think highly of science and scientific methods. The media is partly to blame for this as they like to take snippets out of a study and create headlines. If an intelligent person would take the time to read scientific papers on a particular subject I bet they would be amazed on how their conventional media driven wisdom would change. Heck, I've read papers where the researchers ignored their own results and based their conclusions on another flawed study. But in that case, it was plain as day to see they were being pressured by the hand that fed them for research grants. Again, reading the actual paper enlightened one to what was going on.
There's a quote by a famous person that I like to use when it comes to internet evidence, "Trust, but verify".quote:
Originally posted by Terry:
Again, who you gonna trust ?
Neutra? FP would have been great to see, after all the hype...
But, hey, it's your dime... who are we to specify the test?! Please share your results.
It would be neat to see what ARX could do for a wet sump 2 stroke. You would be able to see the rings through the cylinder ports with a borescope. It would probably be necessary to weld some bungs on the manifolds for easy access.
Steve
Steve
Well I would have been happy to test FP but only if the test were done in the manner in which others have been using the product. It would appear that most people haven't been soaking the piston tops with Lube Control prior to using FP.quote:
Originally posted by novadude:
Neutra? FP would have been great to see, after all the hype...
But, hey, it's your dime... who are we to specify the test?! Please share your results.
I have NOT been soaking pistons... just dumping it in the gas tank. I think 95% of users of FP on this board have done the same.
Wonder why Odis does not want to see a "no soak" FP test???
Wonder why Odis does not want to see a "no soak" FP test???
Aaron
Is it possible that FP can be tested in another vehicle. Would be interesting.
- Status
