CRC G2P works!

[fdcg27]

I put two bottles of this in the '12 Accord last Sunday at which point it would have had probably 18 gallons remaining.
The rated tank capacity is 18.5 gallons, bit it really holds more like 22. It had done about 300 miles since I added the stuff.
Anyway, I drove the car today and noticed that it seemed smoother, even at idle with the AC compressor running.
Having told my wife nothing, I asked her if the car seemed smoother to her, since she had driven the car all week. She said that it did and asked what I had done to it so I then told her.
It appears that a decent dose of PEA really can do something useful.
I bought the G2P at Walmart on clearance last year for $3.75/bottle. The name wasn't really the game for me, since we have no need to pass emissions, rather I bought it because it had a strong PEA content.
It appears to have done something positive in this case.
Only an anecdote I know, but I thought it worth sharing.

 

[CharlieBauer]

Yes PEA works.

Now here's a thought. Give you car and another bottle to somebody else, instructing them to use the bottle the next time they fill up and to return the car to you at the end of that tank.

They will tell you it did nothing.

 

[Coprolite]

You probably are able to exceed the rated capacity of the tank by filling up the evap system. That isn't prudent long term.

I read that you added it when it had 18 gallons in the tank? Did you add the bottles and then 18 gallons of gas?

 

[fdcg27]

No, I added the bottles after the car had been driven 166 miles from a full tank.
WRT the evap system, I've never had any problems with it on any car we've owned over the past forty years if that's long term enough.

 

[Coprolite]

Except for some codes, it may not be an issue, especially in a place that doesn't require any environmental check during an inspection. Emissions and spills can be an issue though.

Down in the South, the expansion of gasoline in a totally full system would be interesting. After almost blowing up a few portable tanks, I don't want to try it on a vehicle.

How did you drive 166 miles on 4 gallons of gas?

 

[HangFire]

Originally Posted By: Coprolite
You probably are able to exceed the rated capacity of the tank by filling up the evap system. That isn't prudent long term.


I keep hearing this. I think it may have once been true with first-gen carb emissions systems, fuel pumps on engines and a large evaporative charcoal canister.

Now we have high pressure pumps in the tank, return lines from fuel injectors... how you gonna get enough pressure up to pump gas out the far side through all that?

You're not.

 

[Coprolite]

Gas expands when it warms up from being underground. When the system is full, it has nowhere to go. All the return lines in the world won't matter if the place the return to are the source of the pressure. I don't see how a high pressure pump would matter here. An HP pump has high pressure output, not a design to operate under high pressure. The most likely outcome will be a release of gas to the environment if it expands before the engine has time to use enough to create the spare space needed.

One would hope the car would be designed to vent the fuel in preference over putting it in the cylinders, with venting being the path of least resistance after all. If the fuel system is that full, the owner won't care about hurting the environment or wasting money, as they have already spent a lot of extra time forcing it to fill up all the way. From the economic standpoint, topping off to that degree doesn't pay.


Originally Posted By: HangFire
Originally Posted By: Coprolite
You probably are able to exceed the rated capacity of the tank by filling up the evap system. That isn't prudent long term.


I keep hearing this. I think it may have once been true with first-gen carb emissions systems, fuel pumps on engines and a large evaporative charcoal canister.

Now we have high pressure pumps in the tank, return lines from fuel injectors... how you gonna get enough pressure up to pump gas out the far side through all that?

You're not.

 

[fdcg27]

The simple and correct explanation is that it isn't possible to fill the tank sufficiently to eliminate all of the voided space within it. Therefore, considerable air volume remains, which is compressible and will absorb any expansion of the fuel as it warms. The car's fuel tank and filler are nothing like the gas containers one uses for an outboard or OPE which can easily be filled to the brim.
If there were any release of fuel or vapor into the environment, you'd smell it.
I never have.

 

[steve20]

I think the log term issue he is referring to is repeatedly flooding the charcoal canister with liquid fuel when the system is designed to capture vapor
Steve

 

[HangFire]

Originally Posted By: steve20
I think the log term issue he is referring to is repeatedly flooding the charcoal canister with liquid fuel when the system is designed to capture vapor
Steve


I understand that...

How many here have replaced one so damaged?

Even seen or heard of it?

 

[Coprolite]

For me, this is simply an academic discussion. If my evap system began to throw codes due to the charcoal canister, it would be an expensive proposition as it would need to be rectified before the car could pass State and local inspection. The car does seem to monitor it pretty closely, as one of the few times my wife filled the tank she didn't close the cap until it clicked. I was next to drive and it told me to check the cap. When getting gas, I fill until it clicks off and move on quickly to other affairs. This provides the most consistent FE calculations and I know that the Evap system is not at risk in any manner. I don't see the need to carry around extra fuel weight for no added benefit. Any loss in extending the time between fills would be more than offset in having fresher fuel. I can't get E0 here, so freshness matters to me more than many other issues. I rotate the vehicle used for commuting in order to maintain relatively fresh fuel in the vehicles.

My dad happens to follow the same top up as the OP, albeit to a lesser extent. I don't think he managed to squeeze that much extra fuel into his Hondas, one of which I just purchased from him. Perhaps he just does a quick round up or another click or two, as he is usually rushing around and doesn't particularly care to fill it to the brim, simply ensure that it didn't click off early.

I also happen to be an engineer that tries to follow the instructions. I put in my PEA on a tank that is almost empty and then fill it up. It is good to see that CRC works well. I am looking to start rotating system cleaners. This thread is appreciated on that front.

Happy Father's day.

 

[Coprolite]

I have seen them throw codes. Since it wasn't mine, I don't know how far they went to fix it.

Originally Posted By: HangFire
Originally Posted By: steve20
I think the log term issue he is referring to is repeatedly flooding the charcoal canister with liquid fuel when the system is designed to capture vapor
Steve


I understand that...

How many here have replaced one so damaged?

Even seen or heard of it?

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: Coprolite
I have seen them throw codes. Since it wasn't mine, I don't know how far they went to fix it.

Originally Posted By: HangFire
Originally Posted By: steve20
I think the log term issue he is referring to is repeatedly flooding the charcoal canister with liquid fuel when the system is designed to capture vapor
Steve


I understand that...

How many here have replaced one so damaged?

Even seen or heard of it?


The only code I've ever seen related to the evap system on any car was one caused by the failure of the purge solenoid on our '99 Accord about 34K into its life. That was a known issue in these cars caused by corrosion and was fixed under warranty.
The charcoal canister will never see liquid fuel for the reasons that I cited in a reply above.
Obviously, if I had experienced any problems related to possible overfilling with any car, I would avoid it with all.