38 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHFuel treatment
Leading reported evidence
Clean better than techron
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
Both times I felt like Seafoam cleaned better than Techron, which I use every 6 months or so in all cars.
Leading evidence: 'Clean better than techron' (no explicit attributable resolution; this is a reported action or suggestion). Across 1 matching discussions, The most frequently discussed action is 'Clean better than techron' (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
reservoir that you filled with the oil, it was to prevent rust on the Iron pistons, cylinders, and rings.
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 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 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.
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 main direct benefit is that the additional lubrication in the fuel helps reduce throttle shaft wear in carburetors (particularly Webers, which are prone to wear) and it helps clean engine and fuel deposits.
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.
38 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.
1 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
I started using Lucas upper cylinder lubricant with every fill up. I recently bought the car and it has no signs of bore scoring (left tailpipe buildup, ticking at idle, etc.). My plan is to help keep it that way in whatever way I can. I know there's no supporting evidence that upper cylinder lube will help, but I see no evidence that won't. I know Porsche originally recommended no fuel additives, but that was 20 years ago with there were no known issue with bore scoring, IMS, etc. They expected the engine to be properly lubed from the factory. We all see how that worked out. Even they changed their minds over time...
People are scared and are willing to put all kids of crap into their cars hoping that it will help. They don't. Save your money. If it doesn't hurt but also does nothing then, why the heck are you buying into the BS snake oil sales pitch? The oil additive market is a total scam.
Well, I changed my original post. It now reads "
I know there's no supporting evidence that upper cylinder lube will help, but I can find no evidence that it won't.".
If you know for sure that upper cylinder lubricant won't make a difference in cylinder wear, please post. Would be great to have a long term study done on engines with and without UCL, scoping the cylinders periodically. But without hard evidence one way or the other and given the issues with the M96 engines, I'll pony up the $.06/gallon and keep my fingers crossed.
Lack of evidence is not proof. That's just how science works regardless what the topic is. So YOU need to prove that it works and not the other way around.
I don't need to prove anything because I'm not trying to convince anyone to use it or not...
Which brings us back to square one. So what have we learned?
That you shouldn't try it because there is no proof that it works.
And I will try it because there is no proof that it doesn't work.
And this is exactly what the oil additive industry wants. People to blindly buy into the BS. You want to lubricate the combustion chamber, add some oil to the gas tank.
Please pop over to bobistheoilguy.com, they have a special forum for fuel additives.
To summarize 15 years of reading...fill your car up with Chevron premium all the time and don't put in any additives. Chevron has a bit of techron in it.
I've used BG 44K in several of my vehicles including the 911 on a couple of occasions. I haven't really noticed a difference regarding engine performance any of them.
However, since I run Tier 1 fuel and all my vehicles are thoroughly maintained, I really wouldn't expect to notice any improvement regardless of how effective the treatment is.
Mike
Probably because there is such a thing as too much cleaning.
These cars don�t really need it on every fill up. Normal fuel - not just the 93 octane stuff, but the regular old 87 octane fuel - already has additives, lubricants, etc. A healthy engine doesn�t need fuel additives any more than oil additives.
However, periodic cleaning once a year or so might not be a bad thing. The Techron stuff and BG44K probably will do a better job cleaning, but cleaning with harsher than normal chemicals can strip away and break down the oil in the engine, not to mention, loosen and remove dirt, which goes into the oil. So the best way to get rid of that is to change the oil.
I�ve also heard some folks say use Techron/BG44K before a track event.
You have a premium sport car, burn premium Top Tier fuel. I would recommend Shell V-Power�. That simple. Don't get sucked into heavily marketed bottle solutions. If I ever get a misfire or have a rough idle, I will probably run two cans of proven Seafoam on a low tank. If the problem persists, then I'm looking closely at the fuel injectors, coil packs, etc.
Agree, with the exception of the Seafoam recommendation. It's snake oil. I would never put Seafoam in any engine, much less a high performance engine. There are too many instances of engine problems after a Seafoam treatment, and I personally know of two examples - one if an F150 and the other in a 911SC (both with the same owner).
I only use Techron every time I get gas, it's right there in the Chevron Supreme fuel which is all I use. Why? because 2 different EPA certification engineers told me to use nothing else for our new vehicle certification testing.
Don't put anything the diesel. I had diesels since '04, racked up over 850K kms with them and never, ever added anything to the fuel tank because never had any issues that would warrant it. In the winter, the refinery adds the necessary additives to keep the diesel from gelling so you don't even have to worry about that.
Just a devils advocate here... Hundreds of thousands of commercial boats using it to prevent cylinder and ring corrosion while parked for the last 75 ish years,, the one difference in a lot of cases between early season engine fails and those without them,, the Seafoam pickled engines don't have the problem.. Since Alcohol came around its even worse, even the guys running diesels swear by it.
Salt air is the great equalizer between thoughtful engine care and ignoring the engine. The **sil coated outboards engines are specifically sensitive to ring seizure if left parked.. YMMV..
The discussion is about
fuel
additives not oil additives. I agree with your sentiment about oil additives. The reason oil additives are not a good idea is because every quality oil is already formulated to be the best it can be with the manufacturer's own additives -- they test it until they have it ideal and that's what they sell. Adding an additive to that -- even if the additive contains "good" stuff -- screws up the balance of additives the manufacturer worked so hard to perfect. It is better to find the best oil you can for your specific purpose and to not add anything to it.
The above said, there is no reason whatsoever to transfer well-founded criticism of oil additives to blanket criticism of
fuel
additives. Fuel additives can and do dissolve and clean fuel system deposits that gasoline does not. The very reason top tier gasoline includes a fuel additive is because fuel cleaners
do
work. There is no question fuel additives do work. Unlike oil additives, there is no downside to quality fuel cleaners because they run straight through the system. Top-tier gas contains fuel cleaners, yes, but running a stronger concentration every 6 months or so, and particularly before an oil change is a good idea for most people. If you run a fuel cleaner once a month, you probably won't feel a difference because everything is kept clean -- if you run one after a year, I've rarely felt it not make a difference in any car (vintage or new).
There are two ways to use Seafoam -- one is to suck it into the system by tapping a vacuum hose and the other is to add it to the gas like you would Techron. I would not do the former, I have no issues with the latter, but I've only tried Seafoam as a gas additive twice. Both times I felt like Seafoam cleaned better than Techron, which I use every 6 months or so in all cars. It may be that Seafoam cleans some deposits Techron does not. Maybe I would experience the same thing if I used Seafoam fuel additive (not vacuum!) every 6 months and then tried Techron (as Techron might also dissolve some stuff Seafoam does not).
Most of the bad experiences with Sea foam involve hoses and letting it suck out of the can,,
Very easy to let too much in and hydro lock.. Personally I think adding it to the fuel is the best option.
Using the vacuum method I'd want some kind of metering going on..
Like a small carb jet in the hose so it couldn't get too much at once.
There is a process used to store engines called a fog-down. You use a sprayer and at idle you "fog" the intake till the engine stalls.
I would not do this on a Porsche.. Too little chamber clearance and it shouldn't need it .
Unless your going to park it for years then there are other ways to store/Pickle an engine..
its like all the myth and legend about Marvel Mystery Oil..
if you had a 1940's tractor, it had a Stromberg or Marvel carburetor, the Marvel's often had a small
reservoir that you filled with the oil, it was to prevent rust on the Iron pistons, cylinders, and rings.
Back then they had a lever called various things but what it did was allow steam from the upper
radiator tank to get sucked in to the intake manifold. When you pulled it open the torque went though the roof.
My grandfather had one and when you plowed with it, you'd open the valve, the firing
pulse of the engine would bounce the front tires. (Looked Like this.. https://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-margie/3370910945)
Damn thing really just wanted to kill you if you gave it the chance.. Let the lever operated clutch out too quick and they would go
over backwards..
The Mystery oil was mandatory after running the steam, it would seize the rings in the bores in a couple days otherwise..
Moral is,, a lot of stuff has been left behind because normal day to day use doesn't "require" it,, to generally function.
But I've salvaged many vehicles over the years that wouldn't run so I got them cheap,, and drove them out of the sellers yard.
Often nothing more than a set of points, or some Marvel poured in to each cylinder and hand turned over a couple times..
I helped start about 20 old caterpillars D8's (40's military surplus dozers that hadnt run since the 50's) when I was in High school in 1981,,
Oil and elbow grease got them fired up.
I know I will get flamed for this, but Marvel Mystery Oil as a fuel additive is legit stuff even today every tank for vintage cars. The main direct benefit is that the additional lubrication in the fuel helps reduce throttle shaft wear in carburetors (particularly Webers, which are prone to wear) and it helps clean engine and fuel deposits. Vintage cars run better with MMO every tank in my experience. I don't use it on modern cars, but there are legions of people who use it every tank in modern cars claiming fuel economy increases in addition making the car run better. 4 oz/10 gallons is optimal supposedly, too little or too much is not as good (and too much can trip check engine light in modern cars).
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
