Scotty Kilmer: Don't use MMO!

Status
Not open for further replies.
To throw my hat in the ring, I started using MMO myself. I only use 87 unleaded with no ethanol in my vehicle. I've now run 2 tanks with MMO added at the proper ratio, and my vehicle honestly feels a little sluggish. Gonna fill up later today at the same place I always do sans MMO and see how it feels.
 
If you overdose on MMO, this is exactly how it feels. Next time you feel like trying MKMO again, cut down on the ratio.
 
Originally Posted By: Vikas
If you overdose on MMO, this is exactly how it feels. Next time you feel like trying MMO again, cut down on the ratio.

He said he put it in at the right ratio - not exactly sure what he was using. The website says 4oz MMO per 10 gallons of fuel. Maybe he had a mixing problem or it all went to the bottom of the tank.

In oiler land, 1 quart per 1000 miles is what I try to achieve. For many vehicles, that works out to about ~1/3 quart per fill-up. Or, if you use (or re-bottle into) pint bottles, about 2/3 pint per fill-up.he ratio. [/quote]
 
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Fueding among product spokespersons aside, surely someone has a thought on measuring methodology for effectiveness (or lack thereof) of a fuel additive. Are we bested by an 11th grader?


You aren't going to like my suggestion, but you would never test a fuel additive's performance in the wild (but you might test other things about, it like corrosion). Just as you would never test a new type of spark plug, or a different type of fuel, or a new piston design, or anything when you are looking for the effect of one parameter.

Back when I was in school the way you tested stuff like this was with a one-cylinder test engine. You used the same fuel for all your tests and gathered your results. It was all corrected for any temperature and pressure variances. In this way, you can measure small changes and most importantly you can attribute changes to the parameter under test. Out in the real world, there are just too many things that cannot be controlled and this will more than likely prevent you from attributing any measured effect to any specific parameter.

The only time you do real-world fuel economy testing is when that is the thing you are testing. For example, somebody may wish to compare the EPA fuel economy tests to real-world driving. In this case what you are testing is real world driving. I found that article I referenced earlier:

http://www.motortrend.com/features/consumer/1401_real_numbers_mpg_101/

This article touches on the challenges of this test, and is where I got the 4% variance number for fuel. It was worse than I remembered though, they are claiming the difference from fuel from the same station (I thought it was from different stations). But note this test is to test real-world fuel economy, not to test some small change in some parameter for the engine.

I really think you would need a test engine in a laboratory for any decent measurements. It bugs me that an additive manufacturer would not publish any such results. Surely the have tested it like this; it isn't an expensive test. In my experience one is generally secretive about test results when they do not prove something you are trying to show.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
I really think you would need a test engine in a laboratory for any decent measurements. It bugs me that an additive manufacturer would not publish any such results. Surely the have tested it like this; it isn't an expensive test. In my experience one is generally secretive about test results when they do not prove something you are trying to show.

I'm working on some other parts of your comments. But, as to manufacturers not releasing results the reasons are both legal and social. If/when a company gets sued (e.g. MMO for screwing up someone's catalytic converter or STP for false advertising) lawyers typically try to use the company's own research against them (Look at this 1 test out of 58 that you performed and the catalytic converter melted!). But, they have to get this research, and most judges won't allow it to be discovered, as against social policy. But, if a company publishes the research (rather than just a summary), all bets are off. You and I both know that research frequently has some aberrant results (the mice all died on test #214. But they lived just fine, got smarter, even got into Harvard, in 499 other tests). I don't necessarily believe companies have something to hide. Maybe, maybe not. But they still keep their cards very close to the vest.

As for an independent researcher reviewing a proprietary product, forget it. Even if the results were positive, the researcher is likely to get a 'cease and desist' letter from the company's lawyer (Dear Sir: You may not use our name or our products name in anything you are doing, for now until eternity!) Game over. I'm surprised the Lucas folks didn't send a lawyer letter to that kid in South Carolina.

Consumers Union (the Consumer Reports folks) occupy a very unique position - they test brand names, generally without the manufacturer's permission. And, even they get sued. But they are so wrapped in 'public purpose' they are almost an arm of the government. Sadly, they haven't done a review of oils or additives that i have found.

From a business perspective, it makes more sense (and more profits) to market your product based on endorsements, anecdotes, glowing summaries, etc. Think Richard Petty and STP - a marriage made in heaven.

Which is a better sell: a bonafide 1.3% increase in HP from using an oil or type of gas or additive? Oh, and this is based on careful and painstaking research. B-O-R-I-N-G

Or Billy-Bob Cooter driving the Atomic Oil Special to victory in the Toilet Bowl 500. Who cares that the Atomic Oil Special was designed in France, assembled in Germany by master mechanics, monitored during the race by computers and will be torn down completely and rebuilt after each race... and may not even use Atomic Oil (well, a few drops for good measure). Both Billy-Bob and the car have Atomic Oil emblazoned all over everywhere. And just to make sure you don't look away, Miss Atomic Oil, whose wardrobe consists of only skimpy bikinis (also emblazoned with Atomic Oil's logo), is always available for photo-ops. Oh, look, there she is pouring a few drops of Atomic Oil into the Atomic Oil Special. S-H-0-W B-I-Z
 
My tank holds 18.7 gallons so I added about 6 ounces to my tank. Maybe a hair over that so if anything I may have added less than what I should have.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
Which is a better sell: a bonafide 1.3% increase in HP from using an oil or type of gas or additive? Oh, and this is based on careful and painstaking research. B-O-R-I-N-G
I am not sure if you are getting the point that some of us are making. It is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT to measure the 1.3% increase without laboratory conditions. If the deviation between two readings is of the order of 1-2%, then you just can NOT prove 1.3% gains by scientific methods.
 
Originally Posted By: Vikas
Quote:
Which is a better sell: a bonafide 1.3% increase in HP from using an oil or type of gas or additive? Oh, and this is based on careful and painstaking research. B-O-R-I-N-G

I am not sure if you are getting the point that some of us are making. It is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT to measure the 1.3% increase without laboratory conditions.

My response was only to part of kschachn's message. I do get your point. And, you are right - small gains can be very hard to measure or verify.

Originally Posted By: Vikas
If the deviation between two readings is of the order of 1-2%, then you just can NOT prove 1.3% gains by scientific methods.

You can if you have enough data points. More to the point on this discussion, you can prove that an engine runs better or more efficiently or differently with and without the additive. You may not be able to quantify that it is 1.3% better, but definitely better or worse.
 
I use it in the fuel sometimes.

The ratio is very lean 1:800.

I think the main beneficial effect is that better the atomization of fuel.

I do not believe higher dosage will do better.

I see It just as fuel conditioner.
 
Why would you think that? Is that a manufacturer's claim for the product?

Originally Posted By: Mephy
I use it in the fuel sometimes.

The ratio is very lean 1:800.

I think the main beneficial effect is that better the atomization of fuel.

I do not believe higher dosage will do better.

I see It just as fuel conditioner.
 
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Why would you think that? Is that a manufacturer's claim for the product?

Originally Posted By: Mephy
I use it in the fuel sometimes.

The ratio is very lean 1:800.

I think the main beneficial effect is that better the atomization of fuel.

I do not believe higher dosage will do better.

I see It just as fuel conditioner.


No,

from my experience, I have better combustion.

I can see from the mileage, the performance of the car and the cleanliness of the exhausting pipe.
 
Originally Posted By: MileHigh18
I usually watch Scotty Kilmer on YouTube, and noticed he commented that you shouldn't use MMO in a modern car because it ruins the catalytic converter. Is there any truth to this?


Yes. 1000 ppm P. P poisons cat converter.
 
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: MileHigh18
I usually watch Scotty Kilmer on YouTube, and noticed he commented that you shouldn't use MMO in a modern car because it ruins the catalytic converter. Is there any truth to this?

Yes. 1000 ppm P. P poisons cat converter.

If you check the FAQ on the MMO Website it says:

Q: Will MMO cause any damage to oxygen sensors, fuel sensors or catalytic converters?

A: No. MMO has undergone rigorous testing to ensure the safety of all internal components in your vehicle including highly-sensitive oxygen sensors, fuel sensors and catalytic converters.
 
Originally Posted By: dave5358
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: MileHigh18
I usually watch Scotty Kilmer on YouTube, and noticed he commented that you shouldn't use MMO in a modern car because it ruins the catalytic converter. Is there any truth to this?

Yes. 1000 ppm P. P poisons cat converter.

If you check the FAQ on the MMO Website it says:

Q: Will MMO cause any damage to oxygen sensors, fuel sensors or catalytic converters?

A: No. MMO has undergone rigorous testing to ensure the safety of all internal components in your vehicle including highly-sensitive oxygen sensors, fuel sensors and catalytic converters.


I don't know how they "tested" and I don't care what they say.
Facts speak for themselves. The damage could be slow and may take more than 100,000 miles to declare itself.

If one has to have add things to gasoline, there are things that don't have sulfur or phosphorus.

I'm not bashing MMO, I use it for piston soaks when needed.
 
I had a little over 212,000 miles when I junked my Aerostar. I used MMO in the gas since I bought it with about 50K miles on it. It went to the junk yard with the original CC and 02 sensor. My 88 E-150 was fed MMO via an inverse oiler since it was about 6 months old, I think. The original CC is still in there as well. I did change the 02 sensor although it wasn't needed. I've used it in the gas in other vehicles as well since the mid 70's. Honestly I believe them when they say is is CC and O2 sensor safe. Opinions vary.
 
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
I don't know how they "tested" and I don't care what they say.
Facts speak for themselves. The damage could be slow and may take more than 100,000 miles to declare itself. If one has to have add things to gasoline, there are things that don't have sulfur or phosphorus.

Per the administrator over at MarvelMysteryOil.com the sulfer content is 1.6ppm. Gasoline in California is 30ppm sulfur; in the rest of the country it may be as high as 300ppm. MMO suggests not using their products in diesel engines build after 2007 - which engines are designed to use super-low sulfur (15ppm) fuel. The concern is that it might affect the vehicle's warranty - nothing else.

The phosphorous is Tricresyl Phosphate, an organophosphate - a very good AW/EP additive, which is also in most motor oils. The TCP content is slightly higher than most motor oils, but given the low MMO fuel additive rate, it's unclear why this would have an adverse effect (or any effect) on the cat.

If using MMO takes 100,000 miles to 'declare itself', you've probably gotten your money's worth out of your catalytic converter. Failures at that mileage are common, out of warranty and have nothing to do with using MMO or not.

'Failure' is a slippery term - it many cases all that has happened is that the vehicle throws a P0420 CEL code. Several things can cause this, including oxygen sensor issues. But, dealers love to replace parts. Replacing a catalytic converter, whether it needs it or not, probably wins them a prize! To the extent it really is the catalytic converter issue, you might Google 'citrus clean catalytic converter'.
 
Albeit I'm joining in on this discussion a bit late in the game... BUT... here's my 2 or 3 cents anyways.

One thing that hasn't yet been stated, and that IMO is important is... where you get your gas from! I live in a town where the only two gas stations are Casey's gas. The good old boys down at Oreilly's (in a town 12 miles away), as well as the guys at Autozone (in another town 14 miles away) will both tell any customer how BAD Casey's gas is. It's absolutely one of the worst gasses of the quote unquote bad gas stations. One guy at Oreilly's told me he ran Casey's gas once in his mustang (where normally he uses BP) and that just that one fill up alone made his car feel sluggish and ran badly. A later fill up at BP solved the problem. SO, what's my point? Do I think MMO is good? Simply put, MMO, or even other additives like STP gas additive, or those other better ones like Techron, all will help the fuel quality of bad gas, no doubt about it. How do I know. Well, some nay-sayers may not think a simple anecdotal piece of evidence stands to represent any meaning at all, but I ignore them. My F-150 runs smoother with BP, and I try to get it when I'm out of town, but when I have to fill up in town with Casey's, you'd better believe I'm going to throw in some kind of fuel additive, regardless of brand. With that being said, some of my favorites are Techron, STP, Gumout, MMO, and Regane. *Cough* but definitely not Lucas! Call whatever fallacy as you might, but I know from firsthand experience that MMO DOES help with bad quality gas.

The uncertainty of whether my cat will become clogged up by using MMO mixed with bad gas... Heck, I just don't care. All I care is that my butt dyno tells me that running MMO with Casey's gas does help. Nonetheless, straight up BP gas (without any additive) still makes my truck run better than Casey's gas with MMO (or anything else). But, in a small country town with only Casey's, it's difficult getting better gas unless I'm out of town.
 
"compression fitting" NOT on my TWK. i have been using MMO for 30 years but Don cant tell when ill have my first fail!!!!
 
MMO and Stabil in all my gas storage and small engines has resulted in gas that can go a year and start on the first or second pull. I never drain the gas for long term storage, do not fog the cylinders, and keep the carb bowl full. I can go outside right now and start my snowblower with one pull. Want a video? lol

What does that mean? No hassles.

Friends that don't have a similar regiment are calling their small engine mechanic almost yearly to get them running again. That's a massive hassle in my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top