50 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHRe-formulated Gas
Leading reported evidence
Use coal
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
No successful repair reported for this finding.
0
Reported fixes
0
Unsuccessful attempts
1
Discussions
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
I believe the stoves used coal when Johnny was a boy.
Leading evidence: 'Use coal' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Adjust mixture' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed
I use Stabil or Star Tron to help stabilize fuel in the internal combustion engines that I store for more than 3 months.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion · Original poster
I know car engines have computers that will adjust for the mixture.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
The only fuel additive I would recommend someone use -- given the right circumstances and symptoms -- is Techron.
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
And then there is the very funny story of the sorry, young fellow who posted on one of the forums (BMW, I think..?) of pouring a bottle of NOS booster into his gas tank, followed shortly after by his car running horrible.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
50 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261026T174436Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
Hello everyone.
Wanted to ask if anyone uses the following product in your car.
"Star Tron Gas Additive Fuel Treatment"
I use it in my boat, wave runner, lawn mowers, weed eater, trimmer and chain saw.
I have not tried it in my car or bike.
Any thoughts?
Zenski
Nope, I only use NOS additive in my cars. You can definitely feel the boost in performance once you add a bottle to the full tank. It is readily available at most gas stations too. You should definitely try NOS if you like Star Tron, you would be mind blown. I am attaching the product description and picture of the product.
NOS Energy, with its exclusive formula, is unsurpassed in cleaning the entire fuel system (fuel injectors, intake valves and combustion chambers) in one tankful. Its use can maximize fuel economy, reduce emissions, improve internal lubrication of cylinders, and restore lost power, performance and acceleration.
Did the fish hook hurt when it went through your cheek? I'm relatively sure that Kalashnikov wasn't actually suggesting that dumping an energy drink into your tank would yield results, although I know of at least one motorcycle forum where this has been discussed extensively.
You are, and this one went over your head badly. Picture of High Performance Energy drink didn't trigger any second thoughts? And you are obviously unaware of the legendary NOS bike story.
[Image-only post; no author-written text. Original image references:]
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/3/37939/898102-thread_fail_stamp.gif
This has nothing to do with octane boost.
This is a product that helps neutralize the ethanol in the crap re-formulted gas.
Not very hard to understand!!!
That's not a very good solution if it indeeds does what you say. The additive turns the ethanal into something well neutral which means it can't contribute any energy in the combustion process.
Furthermore it can't contribute to the gasoline's octane number which means the engine is operating on less octane that the nominal octane number of the gasoline before the additive was used.
There is no need to use any additive in attempt to deal with some imagined negatives regarding ethanal in gasoline.
While I am not a fan of ethanol for a number of reasons in the amount it is present in pump gasoline -- around 7% to 8% -- it is as far as the engine concerned pretty benign.
Save your money and stop using that stuff.
And then there is the very funny story of the sorry, young fellow who posted on one of the forums (BMW, I think..?) of pouring a bottle of NOS booster into his gas tank, followed shortly after by his car running horrible. Desperate, he started a thread looking to others for help. After many questions he realized he purchased NOS
energy drink
and not the fuel additive.
Edit: oops, just searched, it was a motorcycle forum, and 5chnell already mentioned it.
The few times I have tried to find info online about what this product actually is and how it works, I have found nothing.
However I don't think that it neutralizes the ethanol as there would be no benefit in doing that as Macster points out.
Ethanol does no harm when it is consumed in our modern engines, and it actually increases the octane level of fuel which is probably it's only real benefit.
Ethanol does attract water and if fuel sits unused for an extended period of time in a tank, especially if the tank is exposed to the atmosphere at all, water may accumulate in the fuel.
If Star Tron deals with this water accumulation, then it would be a benefit for those specific situations where there is a water concern.
At best, I believe this type of product should be used only if there is a specific problem that you are trying to address.
If the stuff is an enzyme-based cocktail, what reaction does the ethanol undergo? What is the product of the enzymatic digestion of the ethanol? (and if you don't know, why TF would you put it in your gas?)
Your original post (which had nothing to do with the subject, helpfully) mentions a product with a website that contains zero useful information about why you'd dump this crap into your gas. I guess it's harder for us to understand with no context and really no useful information in the OP or on the product's site.
Be sure to seafoam your car as well...
1996 Mustang GT Bad Seafoam Results - YouTube
This thread failed miserably despite having a potential to become epic. I feel like I was Jordan , Schenll was Brad...and others were...well others in this scene from WOWS.
The wolf of wall street - Recruiting scene - YouTube
Oh and
web-site
is very clear about NOS benefits. What are you people talking about?
We obviously have some basic difference on what ethanol does or doesn't do.
So with that being said I would like to say, I at least made you think about ethanol and additives.
Lets just end it with out anymore energy drinks or seafoam remarks (by the way I would never use either one).
Ethanol required my lawn tractor, trimmer, pressure washer and blower to all have to be rebuilt. I know, I should have used an additive made to solve that. But I trusted the corn. I loved the corn. Roasted corn, buttered corn, corn nibblets and the awesome candy corn.
I am now scorned on the corn. Corn is stupid.
Didn't make me think -- that much -- about ethanol. It has been in gasoline I've been using now for years. None of my cars have been affected by it other than they get slightly poorer gas mileage vs. running ethanol free gasoline.
My 2002 Boxster has been using the stuff since at least 2004 (and probably before but I can't recall now if gasoline in the mid-west had ethanol in it or not when I lived there) and now has just over 294K miles. The fuel pump lasted to 172K miles the injectors are original as is the rest of the fuel system.
My 996 Turbo has 137K miles on it and it has been on CA ethanol treated fuel since Day 1. The engine is just fine as is the fuel system.
Adding something to the fuel tank that its maker claims "neutralizes" ethanol is, well, completely unnecessary.
The only fuel additive I would recommend someone use -- given the right circumstances and symptoms -- is Techron.
I use Stabil or Star Tron to help stabilize fuel in the internal combustion engines that I store for more than 3 months. Lawnmower, motorcycle, snowblower.powerwasher, etc...
Star Tron gas additive contents:
2. COMPOSITION and INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTS
EU LABELING AND CLASSIFICATION: This product meets the definition of the hazard class of Harmful, as defined by the
CHEMICAL NAME CAS # EINECS # % w/v EU CLASSIFICATION FOR COMPONENTS
Proprietary Organic Compounds < 0.5
HAZARD CLASSIFICATION: Not applicable.
RISK PHRASES: Not applicable.
Solvent Naphtha
(Petroleum), Heavy Aliphatic 64742-96-7 265-200-4 >
95
HAZARD CLASSIFICATION: Xn [Harmful]
RISK PHRASES: R: 65
So, it's 0.5% snake oil, and 95% solvent naphtha.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_spirit
Buy the cheapest petroleum naphtha you can find, dissolve a small amount of white lightnin' in it, and pour it in your Porsche.
What could go wrong?
"Buy the cheapest petroleum naphtha you can find, dissolve a small amount of white lightnin' in it, and pour it in your Porsche.
What could go wrong?"
Yes indeed! Here are some fine examples of Naptha, so save yourself some money and just pour one of these in your fuel tank. You can thank me later.
I just have one question. If ethanol is no big deal for a engine then why does it lower your MPG.
If it as they state "makes your engine run cleaner" wouldn't you get better MPG.
I know car engines have computers that will adjust for the mixture.
All I'm saying is it can't be good if it lowers your MPG.
The energy of ethanol relative to gasoline
A. 76,000 = BTU of energy in a gallon of ethanol
B. 116,090 = BTU of energy in a gallon of gasoline
C. .655 = 2/3 = GGE of energy in a gallon of ethanol. A / B. (GGE =energy in a gal. of gas)
D. 1.53 = Gallons of ethanol with the energy of 1 gallon of gasoline. D = B / A.
So the point being ethanol has about 2/3 the BTU's of gasoline so you get less mpg.
The government does't give a hoot about your MPG. Ethanol burns cleaner leaving methane and water. If the gas has 10% ethanol, then that's incrementally less pollutants resulting from gas.
Keeping in mind my motorcycles don't have a rubber diaphragm accelerator pump, and the only rubber parts are O-rings that don't do all that much really, and a O-ring to seal the bowl.
Parked my one bike in 2013, in Aug or so with fresh gas. Started it pretty much just fine sometime the next spring and summer, but didn't drive it. Started it again this year, same old gas, although now one of the idle jets was plugged.
My other bike starts up just fine on anything flammable it seems, although I've only run year old gas in it.
The Jeep Cherokee 4.0 I have will burn anything it seems, and be pretty happy about it. Not sure the oldest gas I've had in it, but 5 years back I was leaving it parked for weeks and I'm sure it had 2 or 3 month gas it in at times.
Point being that in a modern car I (personally) aren't going to worry about gas that's under 6 months old, or even up to a year old. Getting over a year would be time to do something about it, but it's not like we're talking about the old tractor sitting in the back yard that gets fired up to haul wood once every few years, we're talking about cars and stuff we use.
Also keeping in mind that small engines with more rubber parts in their carbs do need additives or else those parts start to go bad.
I believe the first is correct.
I don't think Ethanol leaves methane and water. I'm no chemist, but my recollection of combustion chem is C2H5OH + 3O2 = 3CO2 + 2H2O. No -thanes resultant. I'm not going to bother looking it up.
WRT this discussion about Ethanol in gasoline, I think the third point is highly, significantly debatable. Ethanol typically doesn't sit in the ground ready to be pumped out, refined, and burned in our cars. First, there is the cost of production of the base stock(unless you are gathering sea kelp, or native grass), then the cost of collection of the base, and then the conversion of the base to an Ethanol(ferment, distill), and then the cost of anhydrous storage, transportation, and chemical mixing. By the time this is done, I would say the lifecycle costs to add the Ethanol to the gas, combined with the reduced energy content might be a lot lower than most people think. But - where would ADM and Cargill make their billions off the driving public if it was only a scientific discussion? I mean, leaving it to the scientist isn't much fun for the vote-buying pols now is it?
Doc, you got it right but I think you got the 3 and 2 mixed up. You wrote the correct formula, but didn't balance it correctly.
C2H5OH + 3O2 = 3CO2 + 2H2
The correct formula is:
C2H5OH +3O2 = 2CO2 + 3H2O
Spot on.
The methane vs. carbon dioxide. I stand corrected. I'll blame the fact that I had just woken up and hadn't had my coffee yet.
The argument on the third point: Also agree. Ethanol in gas only gives the image that there is less impact to the environment when in fact it has a huge toll in the background which is not publicized.
