Gentlemen. Some time ago I broached the forum with the question--Does FP60 keep the underside of the intake valves clean? I received several responses with somewhat indefinite results. I recently had occasion to remove the cylinder heads from my 67 Mustang driver, this was with 20,000 miles after the initial valve clean-up. The engine is a 90 H.O. 5.0 with carburetion, some minor modifications and slightly massaged E7TE heads.( I replaced the head bolts with ARP studs and nuts ). Teflon valve seals are used with stock diameter valves. The oil is Mobil-1 10-30 with an approximate OCI of 7500 mi. FP60 is added at the recommended rate and the air/fuel ratio is slightly lean using a 390 CFM Holley. Were the intake valves clean? Yes. Best regards. John--Las Vegas.
Intake valve deposits.
- Thread starter Torino
- Start date
- Status
sounds good but not to throw cold water top tier gas should do the same.
bruce
bruce
FP60 should help clean anything in the fuel path.
That includes valves and combustion chambers. Top Tier gas has good cleaners, but not a lot of them.
That includes valves and combustion chambers. Top Tier gas has good cleaners, but not a lot of them.
John,
Thanks for the report.
A detailed report that tells us about your experiance without laying claim to why in a specific way.
It worked for you in this situation and we can either learn from this or argue about it. I suppose I'll see the arguements develope based on Bruce's take on this. Um, not that I could argue the point with him. I'm clueless in this area and trying to learn.
I expect that my view is way off base.
None-the-less, thanks for your input for us rookies and others. John
Thanks for the report.
A detailed report that tells us about your experiance without laying claim to why in a specific way.
It worked for you in this situation and we can either learn from this or argue about it. I suppose I'll see the arguements develope based on Bruce's take on this. Um, not that I could argue the point with him. I'm clueless in this area and trying to learn.
I expect that my view is way off base.
None-the-less, thanks for your input for us rookies and others. John
Was at the Oronite fuel engine lab a few months ago showed me valves from engine test stand with chevron top tier gas valves looked very good only slight amount of "ash" at 100K or so.
LC/ARX maybe great I do not know either way BUT I do know that as time goes on and BETTER fuels and lubricants come out LESS aftermarket add will be needed if at all.
SM GF-4 in my mind is so good now and is designed for little to NO ring belt area deposits (Sorry I never heard or use the term Ring PaK??) till I came here that any flush or RINSE is not needed anymore just a normal OCI of 5K.
Additives will IMHO only be good/usefull on engines that were neglected badly then they are a great way to clean up the mess but on correctly maintained engine they are Not needed even as a "maintenece" dose.
No Flame suit needed been at this too long to get bothered.
bruce
LC/ARX maybe great I do not know either way BUT I do know that as time goes on and BETTER fuels and lubricants come out LESS aftermarket add will be needed if at all.
SM GF-4 in my mind is so good now and is designed for little to NO ring belt area deposits (Sorry I never heard or use the term Ring PaK??) till I came here that any flush or RINSE is not needed anymore just a normal OCI of 5K.
Additives will IMHO only be good/usefull on engines that were neglected badly then they are a great way to clean up the mess but on correctly maintained engine they are Not needed even as a "maintenece" dose.
No Flame suit needed been at this too long to get bothered.
bruce
with the current sm oils additives are diffinitly needed to protect cam/lifters...sm oils are not an advance in tech. but a dumb down version for gov. regulations
oh, another good example is the gov. or lobbies trying to sell the public on ethanol instead of the ideal fuel propane
Other than lower ZDDP which I think will impact high performance cams I disagree SM is a long life low sludge oil.
And besides that I'm a HO guy.
bruce
Here you go Bruce.
Your oronite buds were not using pump sourced chevron 87 octane here in North Texas for that result. MOST people use regular fuels.
I recommend FP60 and hopefully someday FP3000 ( please get it to market Boys) because my customers fuels STILL do not have enough solvency after sitting in a fuel tank/cell for a week or two to keep valves or any fuel side or upper engine component clean longer term. Sure, in the thousands of oil analysis reports we work we see a few perfectly sealed engines that are that clean but that is a small, LUCKY few.
Bruce.. Why not test and try AUTO-RX/LC/FP, you've been hearing and reading about them for some time since joining the mix here. Tell me it has nothing to do with a possible bias that has nothing to do with science ?
A man with your experience and access to testing would lend lots of credence to the viability of these adds if your opinion was based on unbiased testing. I am sure both companies would be happy to provide you product to examine.
Terry
Your oronite buds were not using pump sourced chevron 87 octane here in North Texas for that result. MOST people use regular fuels.
I recommend FP60 and hopefully someday FP3000 ( please get it to market Boys) because my customers fuels STILL do not have enough solvency after sitting in a fuel tank/cell for a week or two to keep valves or any fuel side or upper engine component clean longer term. Sure, in the thousands of oil analysis reports we work we see a few perfectly sealed engines that are that clean but that is a small, LUCKY few.
Bruce.. Why not test and try AUTO-RX/LC/FP, you've been hearing and reading about them for some time since joining the mix here. Tell me it has nothing to do with a possible bias that has nothing to do with science ?
A man with your experience and access to testing would lend lots of credence to the viability of these adds if your opinion was based on unbiased testing. I am sure both companies would be happy to provide you product to examine.
Terry
"Your oronite buds were not using pump sourced chevron 87 octane here in North Texas for that result. MOST people use regular fuels."
Sorry but I Was told "top Tier" fuel was used which they told me is ALL of chevrons fuels no matter octane rating. They also stated that Chevron anywhere in the USA is top tier and will ALL meet the same cleanliness top tier spec.
I have no bias As I said additves can help with engines that have had bad/no maintence done to them.
But an engine serviced and maintained correctly will not need any type of additive IMHO belive it or not I'm not against any aftermarket adsditves I just do not think they are needed and my own personal use proves that out.
150K on a 5.8 bronco that still pass's smog and has never had valve cover off and has had 10-15K OCI
yeah I know. With UOA at 10K showing m happy.
I do not have time to prove or disprove any aftermarket additive and again they do have a place in the market I just do not use them sorry.
Plus if you think about it most "additives" are in one form or the other just a "Concentrated" form of a "normal" additive used in Lubes or fuels anyway.
Bruce
Sorry but I Was told "top Tier" fuel was used which they told me is ALL of chevrons fuels no matter octane rating. They also stated that Chevron anywhere in the USA is top tier and will ALL meet the same cleanliness top tier spec.
I have no bias As I said additves can help with engines that have had bad/no maintence done to them.
But an engine serviced and maintained correctly will not need any type of additive IMHO belive it or not I'm not against any aftermarket adsditves I just do not think they are needed and my own personal use proves that out.
150K on a 5.8 bronco that still pass's smog and has never had valve cover off and has had 10-15K OCI
I do not have time to prove or disprove any aftermarket additive and again they do have a place in the market I just do not use them sorry.
Plus if you think about it most "additives" are in one form or the other just a "Concentrated" form of a "normal" additive used in Lubes or fuels anyway.
Bruce
If all the gas in Southern California comes here in the same pipe, seperated by a pig (no kidding
) the difference is the additives put in the transport truck that takes it from the tank farm (located in Mission Valley) to the gas stations. Ever wonder if the union workers at the tank farm and the truck drivers ever screw up
? Could adding your own gasoline additives be called insurance
? All that stuff in your fuel system is at least a little complicated, and many times expensive. With the ability to trouble shoot demonstrated by many dealer and shops your better off burning your money than paying them to guess what your fuel system problem is. On top of that, in many states you have to pass a smog test that has more to do with regulations then real world engine performance. I can see why many people pour stuff in their gas tanks in hopes of keeping things working well. If I thought the gas people got it right and mechanics could trouble shoot a problem without changing all the parts I would not use a gasoline additive. In the mean time I'll keep pouring the FP60 in the tank. I care more about my engine than the guy at the tank farm and a few bucks extra sounds like a good deal.
Can not hurt and Yes mistakes I think do happen along the fuel transport route.
bruce
bruce
Top tier is a start. But its not the solution for ALL driving styles and engine conditions.
Direct injection sounds like a solution for intake valve buildup. But, valve crud buildup isn't always fuel based.
PCV blowby gases, moisture, and oil mists, work their way throught the intake manifold and along the way, crud up the manifold, valves, piston tops, and the CC.
Yep, install a catch can which is another simple mod that reduces the need for fuel additives.
EGR's sends exhaust through the system. Some carbon builup occurs there too. Any cleanable EGR filters out there?
Poor tuning by OEM, leaky or clogged injectors, owners driving style, poor engine design, and numberous other things, like some that I mentioned above, all add up to the need of the injector cleaners that I use 4 times a year per vehicle. Sometimes I notice a difference in performance after usage. Sometimes I don't.
And, SM oils isn't a solution. Better than SA-SL oils, sure. But, I'm watching one of my engines sludge up on SM oil. How? short trips and failed open thermostat! You should see the milk on that dipstick.
Direct injection sounds like a solution for intake valve buildup. But, valve crud buildup isn't always fuel based.
PCV blowby gases, moisture, and oil mists, work their way throught the intake manifold and along the way, crud up the manifold, valves, piston tops, and the CC.
Yep, install a catch can which is another simple mod that reduces the need for fuel additives.
EGR's sends exhaust through the system. Some carbon builup occurs there too. Any cleanable EGR filters out there?
Poor tuning by OEM, leaky or clogged injectors, owners driving style, poor engine design, and numberous other things, like some that I mentioned above, all add up to the need of the injector cleaners that I use 4 times a year per vehicle. Sometimes I notice a difference in performance after usage. Sometimes I don't.
And, SM oils isn't a solution. Better than SA-SL oils, sure. But, I'm watching one of my engines sludge up on SM oil. How? short trips and failed open thermostat! You should see the milk on that dipstick.
bruce, I am funnin with your "no flame suit, been at this too long" comment thus the flamers above.
My "personal" experience is based on testing both in a proprietary status for the makers of fuel adds and that of our automotive oil analysis results, so 04SpecV I suppose you could say my bias is aimed at what works.
I am currently working two new different fuel add companies products that if they aren't like most the junk I see would be recommended to my customers in lieu of FP3000 if it is never marketed.
My bias is and always has been to share with my customers what works! Techron works and FP works, thats about all I see work. Techron will not lower Nox in the analysis results I look at like FP will for the same dollar and dosage. The proprietary lubricating qualities of FP exceed any known fuel add.
Chevron is a top notch product and if you were here or at Noria back 6 or 7 years ago, I mentioned them and Conoco as having some new and neato base oils that would revolutionize automotive lubes for the average consumer. I think hydrocracking did that in spades. I also hammered Chevron for sitting on the marketable/affordable/profitable technology for about 20 years before that.
If I am biased then who you gonna trust ?
LCD, inc's testing and product production capabilities are a function of capitolization and I have only tested for them independently, I don't own or control them.
The testing they did recently disclosed to EPA from SWRI were very encouraging on FP3000.
Rest assured Torino and hundreds of others here are not all connected and bought out just hawing product. He posts a wonderful result and gets marginalized/dismissed by bruce who is knowledgeable enough to know that adds work regardless of source, even in perfectly maintained cars.
TD
My "personal" experience is based on testing both in a proprietary status for the makers of fuel adds and that of our automotive oil analysis results, so 04SpecV I suppose you could say my bias is aimed at what works.
I am currently working two new different fuel add companies products that if they aren't like most the junk I see would be recommended to my customers in lieu of FP3000 if it is never marketed.
My bias is and always has been to share with my customers what works! Techron works and FP works, thats about all I see work. Techron will not lower Nox in the analysis results I look at like FP will for the same dollar and dosage. The proprietary lubricating qualities of FP exceed any known fuel add.
Chevron is a top notch product and if you were here or at Noria back 6 or 7 years ago, I mentioned them and Conoco as having some new and neato base oils that would revolutionize automotive lubes for the average consumer. I think hydrocracking did that in spades. I also hammered Chevron for sitting on the marketable/affordable/profitable technology for about 20 years before that.
If I am biased then who you gonna trust ?
LCD, inc's testing and product production capabilities are a function of capitolization and I have only tested for them independently, I don't own or control them.
The testing they did recently disclosed to EPA from SWRI were very encouraging on FP3000.
Rest assured Torino and hundreds of others here are not all connected and bought out just hawing product. He posts a wonderful result and gets marginalized/dismissed by bruce who is knowledgeable enough to know that adds work regardless of source, even in perfectly maintained cars.
TD
Terry - Are you saying that after only a few weeks, there will be a separation of needed fuel components? That's good to know.
I know that our garage queens usually have bad gas problems after six months or so.
I know that our garage queens usually have bad gas problems after six months or so.
One big advantage of FP60 is that it makes the cheapest gasoline work as well as the best gasoline, and at lower total cost. I get mileage and performance as good in my turbo Volvo with 87 octane crappy BP/ARCO, the worst gas in the West, as I do with top tier 92 octane Chevron or 76.
My Volvo has 135,000 miles on it. I pulled the intake manifold before using FP60 and it had some moderate deposits on the intake valves. After using FP60 for the past year or so, I needed to pull the manifold again, and the valves were clean and shiny. Most of the gas used was Tesoro (I think), not top-tier.
Ken
My Volvo has 135,000 miles on it. I pulled the intake manifold before using FP60 and it had some moderate deposits on the intake valves. After using FP60 for the past year or so, I needed to pull the manifold again, and the valves were clean and shiny. Most of the gas used was Tesoro (I think), not top-tier.
Ken
Gents. Thanks for the overwhelming responses and excellent information. I learned a lot and respect the direct dialog. As a manager/engineer in the metal extraction business, I always subscribed to the finer points of science--(1) F=MA (2)You can't push on a rope and (3)If it works--use it!!! Best regards. John--Las Vegas.
What about Redline SI-1? Seems that Redline is a top notch company... does this stuff work?
Redline & Techron concentrate both work, but they will not increase gas mileage (unless you have very dirty injectors) the way FP60 does.
FP works.....but you have to have the correct ounce per gallon/FP ratio in your tank.
FP works.....but you have to have the correct ounce per gallon/FP ratio in your tank.
- Status
Similar threads
