The only problem with testing techron on a lawnmower is that: to mimic 1000 miles in a car engine that techron requires to work- you would have to run a lawn mower for weeks.

In fact, what 'chrisfix' is proving is that even in a ridiculously short amount of time, in a non-fuel injected engine, techron does more than it claims. It even gets carbon on piston heads, and thats not their biggest claim.

 

Is more better?
Is slow better?

Both of those questions have been answered for us.

In the professional approach they use some serious concentrations. And hook up your car to the equivalent of a life-support machine. And get the job done in 10miles.

In over the counter add in tank products you dont have a choice but to go slow, only so much can be mixed with the gas, and only so much of the engine oil can be diluted.

You can derive at your conclusions.

 

Jagrag,
You said about BG products "Looks like Hocus-Pocus to me. Another "elixir" for the suckers."

Establishes 2 things- I am a sucker, you can operate on intuition. We should leave it at that.

 

That's just it. You are burning gasoline- but the active ingredient in Techron and now apparently BG- Does Not burn. Thats why the JLR recommendation of using BG comes with the warning;use only 2 cans, then the oil must be changed. Because it stays in the oil.

 

Neither.

The answer is C) the amount of carbon in the engine is perfectly normal and in no way would have any impact on power, fuel consumption, reliability or durability.

As stated several times, the additives in modern pump gas are already more than sufficient. Supplementary products or procedures are an unnecessary and usually unsuccessful attempt to fix things that are not broken.

 

https://www.edmunds.com/autoobserver...-adopters.html

 

Believe it or not, carbon deposits depends on the personality that you have!

Many folks can go an entire lifetime and never clean the throttle body or plate. Manufactures are well aware of this problem, both of carbon building up and people doing nothing about it. So they put a coating on it to prevent buildup, at least during the warranty period. The coating is usually overcome by 20,000 miles.

Clearly there is a huge difference between how a new car feels in 'snappiness' and an old one that seems to take that extra millisecond to process the changed parameters. Even this does not bother most folks. For me its a big deal, more than any hp numbers could ever be.

In many of my older cars, I have found techron to bring some of that snap back. But keep in mind, I do all the other things necessary as well to keep it within original spec.

And that's what the discussion boils down to, can a car go out of spec and still be acceptable- it depends on the person.

No One should ever believe that gasoline is clean. Its the devil. Below is my intake, the picture I posted earlier was the other guy's intake, in his pic you will see the port is filthy except for one small area where the injector was squirting- its supposed to be spraying- that's where you get the snap.



This is the upper half of the intake where there is no fuel or oil that is supposed to be present. And what you cant tell from the picture is how sticky the fuel vapors that have deposited there are. Thats how nasty fuel is. Which has attracted the carbon upwards from the cylinder. What you are seeing is oil vapors, fuel vapors and carbon in an area that is completely upstream from all of that.

 

Q&C will you provide more info on the project you referred to above in red?

 

Gorgon

 

The left side of the intake that you see black, is the exhaust gas that its fed into the intake via the EGR. So lets not forget our dont always breath clean cool air.

 

Maybe this has been stated already, if so I apologize if it has.

Carbon in the combustion chamber takes up physical space and reduces combustion flow. It is only logical that that build up affects power/performance to some degree. As Q&C indicated, perhaps you might not notice it so it is no big deal to you. If you do believe it affects performance though, why wouldn't you want to clean out as much out as possible?

I'm in the camp that it is not good, nor is it vodoo science to keep it at bay.

As others have said, decide for yourself though.

 

On the contrary carbon in the combustion chamber increases the compression ratio which all other things being equal will increase power and efficiency.


On the other hand the thickness of the carbon stains in real life is only in the thousands of an inch so both the reduction in the combustion chamber volume and increase in compression ratio are insignificant.


I'm guessing many of guys have never seen a truly contaminated engine? Ask any mechanic would worked on big lazy carbed V8s from the '60s running on leaded gas. None of you would sleep at night.

 

Is your quoted number of $430 Billion is somewhat exaggerated?

 

As I said, you'll believe what you want and I'm good with that.

 

Yep I recall the day rebuilding several Corvette motors back in the early 60's. We even did some water injection prior to tearing them apart to try to loosen up some of the gunk.

 

No, 31 years in the engine OEM business provided me with plenty of evidence to differentiate fact from fiction.

 

I agree, same here.

 

 

10X investment would be an underestimate
Stock trades at 34X

 

So you acknowledge then making a ten fold exaggeration with what you posted?