I for one think they are useless. What say ye?
Last edited:
Octane Boosters. Discuss.
- Thread starter hardcore302
- Start date
- Status
Yup. You'd really need to dump a lot of it to make a noticeable difference. It's cheaper to buy premium gas than to buy regular plus enough octane booster to bring it up to premium.
octane boosters follow along the lines of snake oil.
I dunno what MMT really, truly is, but I don't think it's that potent to handle 20gallons of gas.
a lot of octane boosters are misleading, a lot boost say 3 points, the fine print is. .3 (tenths). so you'd allegedly have 87.3 octane.
Like Lucas's octane booster, says 30 points, so that's allegedly 87 octane to 90 octane, PLUS the Lucas formulation is supposed to have their fuel treatment added in as well, so for $10, it's a good bang for your buck.
When I go for my smog check, I put in the 91 octane, PLUS a bottle of Lucas octane boost or a can of Seafoam. It's just a superstition, and I can't break the habit, but I've passed super clean since 1991!
I dunno what MMT really, truly is, but I don't think it's that potent to handle 20gallons of gas.
a lot of octane boosters are misleading, a lot boost say 3 points, the fine print is. .3 (tenths). so you'd allegedly have 87.3 octane.
Like Lucas's octane booster, says 30 points, so that's allegedly 87 octane to 90 octane, PLUS the Lucas formulation is supposed to have their fuel treatment added in as well, so for $10, it's a good bang for your buck.
When I go for my smog check, I put in the 91 octane, PLUS a bottle of Lucas octane boost or a can of Seafoam. It's just a superstition, and I can't break the habit, but I've passed super clean since 1991!
MMT is a compound similar to tetraethyllead but made from manganese. It will coat and kill a catalytic converter. Like lead, it does not take a lot to raise octane rating! Don't use this in a modern vehicle with sophisticated pollution controls!
I've found that octane boosters do work in a vehicle that's exhibiting a lot of ping or pre-ignition, but if an engine is pinging a lot and the correct grade of gas is used, there's an underlying problem like a ton of carbon build up. It's a band-aid.
Useless, just buy 93 octane, if you feel you need it.
Organometalic additives (such as MMT or TEL) are incredibly potent at raising octane. MMT is used at the level of 0.018g per liter of gasoline to raise the RON by 2-3 numbers. Classic formula for leaded gasoline involved 1:1260 of ethyl fluid to gasoline, the fluid itself which was itself only 60% TEL.
If MMT is or is not harmful to catalytic converters remains an open question. The US OEM's claim it hurts them, and the EPA claimed it does so as well. However there were lawsuits about if this is really the case, and the answer is that folks use plenty of MMT in canada with no ill effects.
Newmarket, which makes MMT claims that that the free manganese in the exhaust fumes preferentially combines with phosphorous and sulfur, thus protecting the catalytic converter.
Organometalic additives (such as MMT or TEL) are incredibly potent at raising octane. MMT is used at the level of 0.018g per liter of gasoline to raise the RON by 2-3 numbers. Classic formula for leaded gasoline involved 1:1260 of ethyl fluid to gasoline, the fluid itself which was itself only 60% TEL.
If MMT is or is not harmful to catalytic converters remains an open question. The US OEM's claim it hurts them, and the EPA claimed it does so as well. However there were lawsuits about if this is really the case, and the answer is that folks use plenty of MMT in canada with no ill effects.
Newmarket, which makes MMT claims that that the free manganese in the exhaust fumes preferentially combines with phosphorous and sulfur, thus protecting the catalytic converter.
Right. You have to add huge amounts to get increases.
The key word is 'POINTS'. When they say a product raises octane 2 points, they mean TENTHS, not whole points.
The key word is 'POINTS'. When they say a product raises octane 2 points, they mean TENTHS, not whole points.
thanks for the input.
Here's a link to some actual test results:
http://volvospeed.com/Reviews/octane_boosters.html
As mentioned above, the Lucas octane booster, which is MMT-based seems to be the real deal.
http://volvospeed.com/Reviews/octane_boosters.html
As mentioned above, the Lucas octane booster, which is MMT-based seems to be the real deal.
This stuff is the real deal but do not use it in anything with a catalytic converter.
http://www.realleadinstead.com/
I drive a 13.5:1 383 stroker on the street with 93 pump and this leaded additive.
http://www.realleadinstead.com/
I drive a 13.5:1 383 stroker on the street with 93 pump and this leaded additive.
Well, my stance has been the fact that tetraethyl lead should be completely banned from use due to bio-health issues.
Although MMT has yet to be proven, I would treat it with equal suspicion owing to the fact that (a) things tend to become political as the lobbyist groups from major chemical companies such as Afton (formerly known as Ethyl Corp, makers of gasoline lead additives (tetraethyl lead)), DuPont, etc. often times try to force it down the political scene to get approvals for use of their products on general public (we consumers are oftentimes guinea pigs to them whether we are willing or not); just like phenol used in plastics, BPA in polycarbonates, US still hasn't completely banned from using those due to the powerful lobbyists in the senate even though Canada already completely banned BPA use a couple of years ago; (c)US major corporations luv to sue other companies/countries under NAFTA agreement and in the case of MMT's use in Canada: it was Ethyl Corp who threaten with major lawsuits against the Canadian govt that lead to them turning down the ban.
My point is, at this moment while most research bodies have yet to be able to present solid/consistent results to say that MMT is dangerous to human's health. That doesn't mean that it doesn't not carry any harm to begin with. Moreover: with all the rather deceitful tactics to strong-arm other companies, countries, etc. into using certain chemical products so as to assure their bottomline profits doesn't make them a better/ethical company that general public can trust and live with. Afterall: aren't the tobacco companies (back before the 60s) who advertised aggressively that smoking is *not* harmful to you? or leaded gasoline additives over the course of decades which lead to elevated lead levels in blood in most human beings in this century. What makes you think that they are honest with you when all these major corporations care about is their bottomline profits while using general US citizens as their guinea pigs?
Sorry, no point in arguing these but I'm totally against the use of MMT or tetraethyl lead.
Q.
Although MMT has yet to be proven, I would treat it with equal suspicion owing to the fact that (a) things tend to become political as the lobbyist groups from major chemical companies such as Afton (formerly known as Ethyl Corp, makers of gasoline lead additives (tetraethyl lead)), DuPont, etc. often times try to force it down the political scene to get approvals for use of their products on general public (we consumers are oftentimes guinea pigs to them whether we are willing or not); just like phenol used in plastics, BPA in polycarbonates, US still hasn't completely banned from using those due to the powerful lobbyists in the senate even though Canada already completely banned BPA use a couple of years ago; (c)US major corporations luv to sue other companies/countries under NAFTA agreement and in the case of MMT's use in Canada: it was Ethyl Corp who threaten with major lawsuits against the Canadian govt that lead to them turning down the ban.
My point is, at this moment while most research bodies have yet to be able to present solid/consistent results to say that MMT is dangerous to human's health. That doesn't mean that it doesn't not carry any harm to begin with. Moreover: with all the rather deceitful tactics to strong-arm other companies, countries, etc. into using certain chemical products so as to assure their bottomline profits doesn't make them a better/ethical company that general public can trust and live with. Afterall: aren't the tobacco companies (back before the 60s) who advertised aggressively that smoking is *not* harmful to you? or leaded gasoline additives over the course of decades which lead to elevated lead levels in blood in most human beings in this century. What makes you think that they are honest with you when all these major corporations care about is their bottomline profits while using general US citizens as their guinea pigs?
Sorry, no point in arguing these but I'm totally against the use of MMT or tetraethyl lead.
Q.
- Status
Similar threads
