what level of FP for a therapeutic effect?

[kang]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Terry:

Do not use more than 1 ounce FP60 per 5 gallons.

---

I thought 3 ounces per 5 gallons was recommended as a quick clean-up dosage?

What will happen if you run more than 1 ounce per 5 gallons other than wasting product?

Does it make a difference if you use a higher dosage only once or if you use a higher dosage many times?

Thanks.

 

[oilpan49]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kang:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Terry:

Do not use more than 1 ounce FP60 per 5 gallons.

---

I thought 3 ounces per 5 gallons was recommended as a quick clean-up dosage?

What will happen if you run more than 1 ounce per 5 gallons other than wasting product?

Does it make a difference if you use a higher dosage only once or if you use a higher dosage many times?

Thanks.

---

I use more than 1oz per 5 gallons all the time. I like to do this because before I go for gas, I stop at the station dump in the FP at a rate of 2-3oz per 5 gallons because since you can't tilt the bottle completly upside down, therefore I can't get all the FP from the bottle. This is why I use more to help ensure that I get what I need. Maybe it's just me but my truck gets alittle better mileage when I use more FP than reccomended, excluding the A/C being on,,,,,,AR

 

[Terry]

Anything past 2 ounces per 5 gallons one time for a shock dose is all that is needed. Won't harm anything to overdose but I think it is a waste.

I use oil analysis and customer feedback to optimize FP60 use. Just depends on the engine.

I have many customers that run 1/2 ounce per 5 on diesels that are already very clean burning with good results. When we see deposits creep up we go back to 1 per 5.

This stuff is a tool and use it accordingly. If the Ranger is getting good results with his technique who am I to correct him !

 

[JHZR2]

well, I do use LC, my used oil analysis results look quite good, and I get over 29 MPG in the car routinely. Cant say there is much of a problem.

Actually, combustion efficiency is at a peak when NOx is higher, its all an emissions thing to knock it back.

Its not a bad thing, IMO, but the inspection station thinks it is...

I thought FP was supposed to substantially reduce CO, CO2 and NOx emissions from use? Results are in line with the same dyno test done 3 years back... The only difference Ive ever obtained is that it has quieted down my fuel pump a bit...

JMH

 

[Terry]

"I thought FP was supposed to substantially reduce CO, CO2 and NOx emissions from use"

JMH, FP60 does but as I indicated in the other thread this engine is not running in top form.

No chemical formula (unless some unknown trick fuel ) will compensate enough for a defective mechanical issue. The new CAT is just compensating for the incomplete combustion.

Can't wait to see the oil analysis !! YEE HAA, I live for this stuff...

 

[Quest]

dude! If everything runs fine and not mechanical/electrical defects, chances are, your cat needs to be replaced.

CAT can only live for so long and they will die prematurely if exposed to Phosphorus,Maganese, etc. Gasoline additives such as MMT and oil additives such as ZDDP are known to be cat killer.

Just my 2cent's worth. I got a couple of dead cats here already (we have annual emissions testing facilities here also)

 

[JHZR2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Terry:

JMH, FP60 does but as I indicated in the other thread this engine is not running in top form.

---

Not necessarily... As mentioned in the other thread, these older engines that do not have EGR may in fact be doing just what theyre designed to do...

Looking at some other results on a popular BMW forum, NOx readings at 15-25 MPH for the 91 318i (and a few from other e30 engines were:
983, 1034, 1080, 1549 (from an 84 318i - different engine, lower power), 1677, 1071 (engine unknown on last 2, but an e30 BMW).

This tells me that it may be more of a function of the fact that these engines are tuned a certain way, rather than the fact that these engines are ALL out of tune. It was surely fine for federal standards in 1991, but not for NJ standards in 2005 - so we have a problem

Just a thought, not trying to be argumentative.

All the same, if the FP is effecting the thermodynamics of the process in a beneficial manner, this should be seen even if said process has deviated from its optimum parameters. Not saying that the benefit will be substantial, but it ought to be measurable all the same. Assuming that the engine is the same degree 'out of tune' from last time to this time, the use of FP ought to have done something, right? It should have cleaned the combustion chamber, improved fuel characteristics, and effected thermodynamics of the oxidation to be more favorable to power and economy, right?

Come to think of it, if FP does improve power and economy, then it ought to be creating more useful heat from the process, to be converted to work. This useful heat would then have the side effect of driving the thermodynamics / eqm of the nitrogen oxidation, due to temperature.

Maybe Im way off, but I cant see how FP can increase combustion, improve power, and at the same time cause a cooler burn that would make lower NOx.
Only way I can see it is if FP has a higher LHV than gasoline, but a higher delta H of vaporization as well. So it in effect lowers combustion chamber temps, yet at the same time produces more energy from its combustion. Seems something would be off there though.

OK, enough rambling. point is, other cars exhibit similar results. many states dont measure NOx. So it could be combustion inefficiences, it could be that I have a dinan chip that advances timing (though they assured me that it is 49 state legal and does not advance at idle or at light throttle as much as it would at WOT), lean burn, or bad ignition. its most likely not the cat, based upon the results, not the o2 sensor, and since MPG has been consistent as ever, beating EPA numbers, I dont see how it is that much out of tune, unless my excellent MPG is due to a leaner burn, causing less fuel at the expense of other things.

OK, really enough rambling

sorry.

JMH

 

[JHZR2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quest:
dude! If everything runs fine and not mechanical/electrical defects, chances are, your cat needs to be replaced.

CAT can only live for so long and they will die prematurely if exposed to Phosphorus,Maganese, etc. Gasoline additives such as MMT and oil additives such as ZDDP are known to be cat killer.

Just my 2cent's worth. I got a couple of dead cats here already (we have annual emissions testing facilities here also)

---

Cat has been replaced, just enough change to pass me... phew... but not any substantial emissions improvement.

JMH

 

[Gary Allan]

quote:

---

Maybe Im way off, but I cant see how FP can increase combustion, improve power, and at the same time cause a cooler burn that would make lower NOx.

---

I can't comment intelligently on the dynamic process (I do understand NOX production and EGR and FGR) ..but EGR is, in hiper engines, used to the advantage of getting the most output without detonation.

In non-egr engines, cam overlap and ignition/injector timing is used to control the production of NOX. Spent combustion material is spent combustion material whether it's induced or just left behind.

Your NJ specs should not be below the OEM specs for your year. OEM performance is, IME, far below requirements. My Caravan (92) is so far below the spec's (except NOX) that it isn't even funny. What happens in PA's "enhanced emmisions" counties is that they take the level of recorded emissions output vs. the number of registered vehicles in the program. If the emissions is elevated (perhaps due to nothing more than more registrations in the zone), they tighten the regs ...but if a system was at or near OEM spec ..it would still be WAY below the allowances. Beyond that ...it's a $250 cap on emissions compliance repairs to get an emissions sticker.

 

[Terry]

JMH, I love open debate because I want to understand the FP60 capabilites myself.

Spit on sensitivities and get er done..Be argumentative please. If feelings get hurt just email Pablo, he'll straighten me out !

Pabs knows what I am talking about. For goodness sake you is a smart feller. I defer to you as a fuels expert.

In a few months we may know more as the regulators will be looking at the FP60 product very closely in independent diesel tests at a MAJOR test facility to EPA standards. About all I can say about that. I am involved but as a monitor of the process and interpreter of the data gleaned.

I agree that the 1.8 was tuned for certain settings and now the engine may not be able to meet new levels of emissions placed on them. I doubt that cooperatively we can't correct the issue though.

Your specific oil analysis will be very helpful in me pining that down. I might suggest using either the Premium kit or the in-house kits so we can get NOx and oxidation readings. See my website and services page to determine which you want.

 

[JHZR2]

Per my thread in the maintenance forum, my BMW just failed NOx emissions.

As Ive read here, FP is supposed to significantly reduce them, yet Ive been using it regularly for the last year.

I did a shock dose about 2 tanks ago. I regularly run ~1oz/5 gal. Apparently it isnt helping any of my emisions numbers, all are the same or worse than previous.

How much FP should I add to obtain good, NOx reducing effects?

Thanks,

JMH

 

[LCD]

Using LC as well? Has this car been through oil analysis? May be other factors involved that FP cannot help.

 

[Terry]

FP will not correct a mechanical problem.

Without having in depth knowledge of the engine I can't say exactly what is the offending component/s.


Do not use more than 1 ounce FP60 per 5 gallons.

You have a tune issue.