MMO vs. LC / FP???
- Thread starter Dr. T
- Start date
- Status
i wouldnt trust it in my oil but in the fuel, id be interested to see a comparison
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,587
I used to use MMO in the fuel. I seemed to get a bit better (1-2 mpg) gas mileage, just like with the FP that I'm now using.
Well noone will tell us whats in FP/LC. We do know that MMO containes atleast Naptha, OIL, maybe other things.
I think it would be really hard to compare them in an unbiased way. What are your ideas for a comparison test? Mine is like some identical
"FUEL INJECTED" vehicles ran in the same way for a certain number of years/miles. But even this may not prove anything and would be expensive.
You can do VOAs, UOAs, and other bench testing, but does it really prove anything? Plenty of vehicles last hundreds of thousands of miles without any fuel or oil additives.
I think it would be really hard to compare them in an unbiased way. What are your ideas for a comparison test? Mine is like some identical
"FUEL INJECTED" vehicles ran in the same way for a certain number of years/miles. But even this may not prove anything and would be expensive.
You can do VOAs, UOAs, and other bench testing, but does it really prove anything? Plenty of vehicles last hundreds of thousands of miles without any fuel or oil additives.
04SpecV ,No one will tell you for sure what of the MMO product is either.
I know what the primary components are in LC/FP and am confident that the final chemistry is a effective and safe value when used as directed.
Aside from Auto-Rx/Cycle-RX products, I won't say that publicly about any other products right now.
Comparing independent testing of the products is the way to go. Hopefully soon more of that kind of data will be available for the LC/FP products.
Yes UOA can give you a good idea of effectiveness and safety of the ANY oil or fuel add, you just have to know what to look for and properly interpret that data. Do it every day.
I know what the primary components are in LC/FP and am confident that the final chemistry is a effective and safe value when used as directed.
Aside from Auto-Rx/Cycle-RX products, I won't say that publicly about any other products right now.
Comparing independent testing of the products is the way to go. Hopefully soon more of that kind of data will be available for the LC/FP products.
Yes UOA can give you a good idea of effectiveness and safety of the ANY oil or fuel add, you just have to know what to look for and properly interpret that data. Do it every day.
I know that was my point.
Yeah who is doing the testing? And when might it be available?
UOA isn't without flaws. I don't think its as accurate as some would like to promote it as being. I mean can you really say : Engine X using fuel/oil additive Y will last 300K miles vs 250K miles,if it had used no additives? Same thing with people trying to compare oil brands using UOA
SWRI, in San Antonio hopefully by end of year. I will be observing/overseeing the testing as a hired gun by LC/FP60. EPA and Texas Natural resouces board is very interested in the LC/FP60 capability to reduce soot and other emissions, primarily in diesels and have provided a grant for the same.
I'm not just "people" gabbing on the internet, I do this professionally.
UOA is an affordable tool that can tell you much about what this and that combo can yield, but only if you have lots of experience and comparative data to relate the UOA to. Guessing is not a good technique when you get your results from X lab !! I agree !
I'm not just "people" gabbing on the internet, I do this professionally.
UOA is an affordable tool that can tell you much about what this and that combo can yield, but only if you have lots of experience and comparative data to relate the UOA to. Guessing is not a good technique when you get your results from X lab !! I agree !
"Well no one will tell us whats in FP/LC."
What if your kid swallowed some FP or LC and you took him to the emergency room along with the FP/LC container. How would the doc know what the kid had ingested? How would the doc know what to do to treat this (presumably) poisoning? Is there no central place where the information would be available? What if you called a "poison control center"? Don't manufacturres have to provide information like this? Curious
What if your kid swallowed some FP or LC and you took him to the emergency room along with the FP/LC container. How would the doc know what the kid had ingested? How would the doc know what to do to treat this (presumably) poisoning? Is there no central place where the information would be available? What if you called a "poison control center"? Don't manufacturres have to provide information like this? Curious
moribundman -
As far as the 1-2 mpg increase while using MMO, that might be attributed to upper cylinder lubrication imparted by said product. If I'm not mistaken, there's a fair amount of friction between cylinder walls and piston rings.
Also assuming MMO readily burns with not too different an energy value, you will thus not see much of a change combustion energy. This must be taken into account as the given volume is obviously part of the whole with the gasoline in the MPG equation.
I just looked at my LC and FP jugs. The LC says made entirely from petroleum products which would give emergency personnel a clue, but not much more.
The FP jug doesn't have that much information.
It's too bad every manufacturer of potentially dangerous material isn't required to but a 24 hr/day hotline number and URL of an MSDS available anytime on the container.
MSDS sheets can give enough information for poison control and othe responders without giving away the companies secrets.
There is a phone number on the bottles, but at about midnight Saturday Texas time the recorded message said "There is no one available to take you call-please leave a message at the tone"
The company was not identified by name and no number was given to call in case of emergency.
They have little work to do.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 23,587
Curious One, I agree with your assessment regarding upper cyliner lubrication, although it's just my belief. Engine noise was reduced with MMO in the fuel, just like with FP. I used 4 oz of MMO per tank (14.5 gal). In the case of FP I use 1oz per 5 gal of fuel.
Does FP lubricate like MMO?
An MSDS sheet was included in my last order of Fuel Power.
MMO can not come close to LC!! LC disloves engine deposits really fast! I think that with in 500 miles of use it had removed 90% of the varnish visable through my valve cover. THis was on my wifes 1997 Buick Lasaber. This is varnish that Auto-Rx did not touch in 1000-1500 miles of cleaning and a rinse cycle. THe car had been run on M1 almost it's entire life up to when I bought it.
It took the metal parts from a dark nicotine stained color to bright shiny steel,iron and aluminum!
I had tried MMO before in this engine and MMO really did not do much but lower my oil pressure. So after 500-800 miles with MMO in the oil I drained it out. MMO in fuel is fine but in the oil it almost worthless in my opion for any thing other then sticking lifters!
It took the metal parts from a dark nicotine stained color to bright shiny steel,iron and aluminum!
I had tried MMO before in this engine and MMO really did not do much but lower my oil pressure. So after 500-800 miles with MMO in the oil I drained it out. MMO in fuel is fine but in the oil it almost worthless in my opion for any thing other then sticking lifters!
04SpecV, The Auto-Rx treatment was done 2 years prior to the LC treatment. I was inside the engine 1 year after the Auto-Rx treatment makeing repairs and the varnish would not come off unless strong solvents and a stiff solvent brush was used. I cleaned my push-rods and ballance shaft off in this manner and it still required a lot of elbow grease! The varnish on the push-rods was a black color very thin and very hard! IT was uniform over the surfaces I could see with the upper and lower intake manifold off of the Buick 3.8 V6.
I also cut open my filter after doing the Auto-Rx to find it as clean as a new filter. THe rinse filter was the same way. TO add insult to injury I was basicly reprimanded by Frank and yelled at for useing synthetic oil for the cleaning phase. I was basicly told that it was all my fualt that Auto-Rx did not work because I used synthetic oil for the cleaning phase. I was instructed by Terry at the time to push the clean phase from 500 miles to 1000 miles and I did this. I did use a conventional oil for the rinse phase. Fast forward two years and the recomendations now are that Synthetic is fine for the clean phase and the recomended OCI is now 1500 miles not 500 as it was when I used it! The Auto-RX cult isnot as agressive now as they used to be.
Auto-Rx worked great in my transmission though!!
I also cut open my filter after doing the Auto-Rx to find it as clean as a new filter. THe rinse filter was the same way. TO add insult to injury I was basicly reprimanded by Frank and yelled at for useing synthetic oil for the cleaning phase. I was basicly told that it was all my fualt that Auto-Rx did not work because I used synthetic oil for the cleaning phase. I was instructed by Terry at the time to push the clean phase from 500 miles to 1000 miles and I did this. I did use a conventional oil for the rinse phase. Fast forward two years and the recomendations now are that Synthetic is fine for the clean phase and the recomended OCI is now 1500 miles not 500 as it was when I used it! The Auto-RX cult isnot as agressive now as they used to be.
Auto-Rx worked great in my transmission though!!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked