MMO is no joke.

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
What does the Mustang Cam thread have to do with MMO? Was the guy using MMO? I remember some cordial discussion that we had, in fact you cleared some things up, but not about MMO.

But then again it was probably over a year ago and I might have forgotten.

That thread had the same problem as this one: a claim based on insufficient evidence. My contribution to the thread, alongside at least one other member who did a much better than I, was to point out that the evidence was not sufficient to establish the claim. Same fight, different battle.


Originally Posted By: demarpaint
As far as mpg gain claims with other products, its mentioned in the recent LAT thread in the oil additive section.

Noted.


Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I have no reason not to believe the OP in the LAT thread I think he saw gains in two vehicles.

Do you believe everything you hear until you have a reason to disbelieve?


Originally Posted By: demarpaint
If people see mpg gains, its certainly nothing to complain about.

Of course. No one would argue that. The question is whether they are actually seeing what they think they see.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: demarpaint

I have no reason not to believe the OP in the LAT thread I think he saw gains in two vehicles.

Do you believe everything you hear until you have a reason to disbelieve?




Depends on who posts the information. Over the years I've tried many products that worked, some highly hyped, very expensive, and were total garbage. If one or two people are posting fantastic results I wait for the masses to chime in. When a lot of people have similar results I tend to investigate more, then I either prove it or dismiss it for myself [that's if I'm even interested]. I don't think a 1-2 mpg increase is out of the ordinary, in an older vehicle with issues. When I logged mpg highway runs were extremely predictable and noting a change was easy. I kept tires properly inflated, and could notice a change by altering tire pressure it usually took about 5 psi less and I'd drop mpg, 40 psi in my van worked best. There is also a point where no gains can be had, which is why I tell people in a perfectly tuned engine, with no issues don't expect to see any gains using a UCL, older engines respond more at least from my observations. As always people are free to believe what they want, and can add me to their ignore list if they feel the need.

As a side note it is hard to argue cleaning ability of a product especially when you can remove a valve cover or drop an oil pan and see. Pretty easy to notice a noisy lifter quiet down too.

 

[SrDriver]

Just my opinion but with drying effects of Ethanol that is added to gasoline don't see where the use of between 3 and 4 oz of MMO per 10 gallons of gasoline will hurt anything.

Have used it for years in our vehicles in the gasoline and years ago used it @ a 20% rate with the oil when I lived in Wisconsin during the long cold Winter months there.

Wal-Mart sells MMO in Gallon Jugs but you must hunt for it as for some unforeseen reason they don't sell it where the smaller containers are. The Gallon Jugs are in a different colored container too.

We have some small long necked bottles we carry and add the MMO before pumping. Saves money by buying the large container and refilling the small bottles we carry in the vehicles.

 

[Jimmy9190]

Those who saw no benefit or had worse engine performance/less MPG with MMO may have to try it again at a different dose. MMO says 4 ounces to 10 gallons of fuel. I started out at that dose, it worked well for me, then just to see what happened I used about 2.5 to 3 ounces per each 10 gallons. That dose did not work as well for my truck. In my case, 4 ounces is the best dose. MMO does restore the lubricity that is lost in fuel due to the use of ethanol.

Even if MMO did not have any positive effect on my MPG I would still continue to use it for the upper cylinder lube benefits and increased power and compression. I have also done a recent personal experiment when I did not use MMO in a tank of gas. My engine's performance was worse, and I noticed that right away. I added 6 ounces of MMO and topped off my tank and within 10 miles of driving my truck was back to its old self again.

MMO works very well for me and countless others too. I don't need any scientific laboratory type tests and data to tell me that my truck runs better with MMO.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Jimmy9190
I have also done a recent personal experiment when I did not use MMO in a tank of gas. My engine's performance was worse, and I noticed that right away. I added 6 ounces of MMO and topped off my tank and within 10 miles of driving my truck was back to its old self again.

The way to do this kind of trial is to have a friend dose out the MMO without telling you what he did. Repeat that several times, gather your observations, and see what the trend is. This way, you make sure the "butt dyno" isn't part of the equation.


Originally Posted By: Jimmy9190
MMO works very well for me and countless others too. I don't need any scientific laboratory type tests and data to tell me that my truck runs better with MMO.

You're right. More power to you.

What you DO need those "scientific laboratory type tests and data" to tell you is whether or not the effect is all in your head. It's entirely up to you whether you care about that for yourself, and I'm sure you "and countless others" couldn't possibly care less. The point is that when you put your opinions out there, you will eventually encounter people who DO care.

 

[AlienBug]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
If people see mpg gains, its certainly nothing to complain about.

Of course. No one would argue that. The question is whether they are actually seeing what they think they see.


I think they really are seeing the gains they think. A better scientific question IMO is: Are they attributing the gains to the correct factor?

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: AlienBug
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
If people see mpg gains, its certainly nothing to complain about.

Of course. No one would argue that. The question is whether they are actually seeing what they think they see.


I think they really are seeing the gains they think. A better scientific question IMO is: Are they attributing the gains to the correct factor?


Interesting thought. It seems science and engineering comes up a lot in these discussions. For the record I have a lot of respect for scientists and engineers, are they perfect? I wonder what the engineers who developed DI for GM gas engines are thinking with their intake valve deposit, and fuel dilution issues? Reprogram the OLM, and an additive perhaps? Maybe an annual high tech valve cleaning job? Or do it based on miles on the vehicle? Or back the the drawing board? It seems anytime someone posts a gain in mpg, or an improvement in how an engine runs they are reminded about the lack of science behind it. JMO

 

[ltslimjim]

I honestly WOULD like to see a respected & reputable user/poster here(or 2 or 3 posters

), with a vehicle that they believe runs better on MMO, go in for a dyno run at the dosage they prefer the most. Perhaps all of us interested contribute to his PayPal account to cover the 'estimated' total of using the dyno for 30 minutes or 1 hour, for instance? Just post up an 'unaltered' scan of the estimate from a dyno testing shop, then have people volunteer until we all split the cost and wait to see the outcome?

Of course, scientifically, that process is flawed. It doesn't simulate street driving conditions etc etc, variables are not the SAME as in the real world. Thus, does it defeat the purpose all together? MMO won't affect 02 sensor or catalytic converter life in of itself, it 'may' hurt TBN ever so slightly in some apps that have fuel mix with oil. In that case the solvent in MMO; perhaps like any other good fuel system cleaner(?), may wash impurities into suspension(if not combusted/expelled via exhaust) and that is what causes TBN to drop? I remember someone mentioned they noticed end TBN in their UOA would be lower, by a 1/2 a point or a full point at most, after an extended OCI with MMO as compared to without it. Of course, not scientific, but trend worthy.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: AlienBug
I think they really are seeing the gains they think. A better scientific question IMO is: Are they attributing the gains to the correct factor?

That's pretty much what I meant. The phrase "what they think they see" refers both to the fuel economy gain and to their explanation for it.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: AlienBug
I think they really are seeing the gains they think. A better scientific question IMO is: Are they attributing the gains to the correct factor?

That's pretty much what I meant. The phrase "what they think they see" refers both to the fuel economy gain and to their explanation for it.


Quick question, if someone throws in a set of spark plugs and gains 1-2 mpg is that viewed the same as someone tossing a UCL in a gas tank and seeing the same gains? Just wondering that's all.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Quick question, if someone throws in a set of spark plugs and gains 1-2 mpg is that viewed the same as someone tossing a UCL in a gas tank and seeing the same gains? Just wondering that's all.

If by "gains 1-2 mpg" you meant "reports a gain of 1-2 mpg", then yes, absolutely.

Ditto all claims of increased horsepower, and double ditto for subjectively reported things like reduced NVH, freer revving, etc.

This also includes all such claims I have made in the past, FYI. I won't claim I'm exempt from this.

This isn't about MMO, or MPG, or non-"scientific" tests, or chubbs1, or anything. It's about what kinds of claims are being made, and what (if anything) backs them up. That's it.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Quick question, if someone throws in a set of spark plugs and gains 1-2 mpg is that viewed the same as someone tossing a UCL in a gas tank and seeing the same gains? Just wondering that's all.

If by "gains 1-2 mpg" you meant "reports a gain of 1-2 mpg", then yes, absolutely.

Ditto all claims of increased horsepower, and double ditto for subjectively reported things like reduced NVH, freer revving, etc.

This also includes all such claims I have made in the past, FYI. I won't claim I'm exempt from this.

This isn't about MMO, or MPG, or non-"scientific" tests, or chubbs1, or anything. It's about what kinds of claims are being made, and what (if anything) backs them up. That's it.


I got it, but respectfully agree to disagree. I think improvements, slight gains, etc., can be achieved, especially in older engines. Changing air intake, a good tune up, better fuel, even a additive IMO can help in some instances, that's all I'm saying.

Here's one for the record book. I fixed an oil leak in my 93 Aerostar and used M1 5w40 TDT for the first time in it, and did nothing else. My wife actually commented on how much better the 200K mile Aerostar is running now. LOL go figure! Maybe the thicker oil is giving it better compression....................

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I got it, but respectfully agree to disagree. I think improvements, slight gains, etc., can be achieved, especially in older engines. Changing air intake, a good tune up, better fuel, even a additive IMO can help in some instances, that's all I'm saying.

If that's your disagreement, it's not with me. I'm not saying those gains are impossible.

I'm saying you can't just declare victory just because you've seen a change in calculated MPG. That change might be a fluke, or it might be because of something other than what you think. You have to rule out those possibilities before you can say for sure that the change is real and that you know what caused it.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
I got it, but respectfully agree to disagree. I think improvements, slight gains, etc., can be achieved, especially in older engines. Changing air intake, a good tune up, better fuel, even a additive IMO can help in some instances, that's all I'm saying.

If that's your disagreement, it's not with me. I'm not saying those gains are impossible.

I'm saying you can't just declare victory just because you've seen a change in calculated MPG. That change might be a fluke, or it might be because of something other than what you think. You have to rule out those possibilities before you can say for sure that the change is real and that you know what caused it.


The members who repeatedly log mpg and have tested w/o and w/o a UCL, and have logged improvements are all wrong? Each tank they add the UCL they cheat, or change driving habits? I guess......... BTW this isn't about MMO it's about the use of a UCL, and can be extended into other changes like plugs, air intake, tweak timing, or install a chip.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
The members who repeatedly log mpg and have tested w/o and w/o a UCL, and have logged improvements are all wrong?

No, I don't those folks are necessarily wrong, nor do I think they necessarily cheated or changed driving habits when they added the UCL.

The point is this: Unless they take the trouble to control for all the variables, we have no idea what they did or didn't do. That doesn't mean they're wrong, or that they're lying. It just means they haven't provided enough information to make a call either way.

 

[ltslimjim]

^I feel like while it's a good thing to know, there is such a thing as your gut feelings/instinct, etc. Some folks go with that and also report MPG gains(minor part of the equation) or idle improvements/engine operation smoothness etc with an UCL(not just MMO of course).

Yes, knee jerk reactions are an overreaction, but IMO it can be just as much of an 'overreaction' to be so technical to give no credence to another users experience by disputing the most minute of angles and details. Of course, reminders and keeping things in perspective is important, not exaggerating claims is important, but we wouldn't want to be quick to discredit/dismiss the same as giving too much credit/focus to one particular thing.

I believe some who experience using an UCL as a benefit in their apps, get this overall picture, and simply talk about an UCL as part of the equation. Not necessarily product "X" is a MPG wonder, your car will last forever etc.

That's why I'd like to see real world experience and get a feel for what is going on. In a 'controlled' environment, you may get one result and a different one in the uncontrolled real world.

Again, that's me 'just sayin' for the sake of saying.

 

[demarpaint]

Anyone read the thread about TCW3, as a UCL and the benfits over at LS1.com? Close to 1000 posts in that thread, and the vast majority saw benefits, similar to the claims made here. Increases in mpg, longer plug life, cleaner combustion chambers and plugs, smoother idle, more pep in older engines. The cleaner combustion chambers and plugs were interesting, its a visual thing, tough to dispute something you can actually see. Many tested the product for a very long time, and logged results. Interesting read. To each his own!

 

[Vikas]

Here is the thing. Can we at least all agree that in the suggested dosage concentration of either TC-W3 or MMO, there is no harm done? If you believe that, then it is matter of just experimenting in your particular vehicle and deciding whether it is for you or not.

Personally, both TC-W3 and MMO has worked for me BUT not always. Sometimes, I can feel the improvement and sometimes I don't.

- Vikas

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: ltslimjim
Yes, knee jerk reactions are an overreaction, but IMO it can be just as much of an 'overreaction' to be so technical to give no credence to another users experience by disputing the most minute of angles and details.

How is it "minute" to point out that someone hasn't done the minimum necessary to make a claim believable?

 

[KCJeep]

I did a "test" in my Jeep and it definitely helps that vehicle, I'm averaging about +2.5 mpg using MMO at 4 oz per 10 gallons. I posted a thread on that a while back if interested in details.

I've also been "testing" it in the wife's Chevy minivan and the results have not been the same, actually a decrease has been seen so I'm currently testing half doses in that vehicle.

My take, if it works for you, buy it. If it doesn't, don't. If your not sure, spend the couple bucks to try it you'll lose almost nothing in the process and you could possibly gain a good bit. If you refuse to believe the testimonials or try it, just keep right on not buying it. See, there's an option for everyone hah hah!