Fuel Power, Fuel Power, Fuel Power
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Fuel Power, Fuel Power, Fuel Power
I am somewaht new here, but have been a member over at BITOG for awhile and I keep seeing so many threads about SeaFoam, Lucas, techron, ect
Instead of answering alll these I thought to just start a new thread. Fuel Power and Lube Control are the best thing you could do for your engine. These 2 products are like no other on the market. Unlike other products mentioned these will remove carbon and keep it from returning. Using the above mentioned products may give you a false sense that something is really happening and if you use too much of those products they could be harmful. Ad FP to every tank and prevent carbon and improve emissions.
I got turned on to these products by Dyson Analysis and the guys at BITOG and I must say there is nothing like them.
Instead of answering alll these I thought to just start a new thread. Fuel Power and Lube Control are the best thing you could do for your engine. These 2 products are like no other on the market. Unlike other products mentioned these will remove carbon and keep it from returning. Using the above mentioned products may give you a false sense that something is really happening and if you use too much of those products they could be harmful. Ad FP to every tank and prevent carbon and improve emissions.
I got turned on to these products by Dyson Analysis and the guys at BITOG and I must say there is nothing like them.
#5
Data? Recommend you go here: http://theoildrop.server101.com/ubb/...?ubb=forum;f=3 and do some comparisons of results. You really can't call all this info scientific data since there are too many "testers" and uncontrolled variables, but you can definitely see the trends.
In my wife's vehicle, insoluble contamination dropped from 0.5% to 0.3% from one interval to the next (almost same mileage and conditions). The first run had no Lubecontrol, the second did. Conclusive, no; strongly suggestive, sure. On my G35's first UOA, with LC, my insols were only 0.2%. Alas, I have no data for that vehicle without LC, but compared to other vehicles, and especially with a very young VQ35, this is an outstanding result.
Are either of these products magic potions? I don't think so, but I am gaining confidence that they are worthwhile additives.
No, I don't sell either, and I have no stake in the outfit that produces LC and FP.
In my wife's vehicle, insoluble contamination dropped from 0.5% to 0.3% from one interval to the next (almost same mileage and conditions). The first run had no Lubecontrol, the second did. Conclusive, no; strongly suggestive, sure. On my G35's first UOA, with LC, my insols were only 0.2%. Alas, I have no data for that vehicle without LC, but compared to other vehicles, and especially with a very young VQ35, this is an outstanding result.
Are either of these products magic potions? I don't think so, but I am gaining confidence that they are worthwhile additives.
No, I don't sell either, and I have no stake in the outfit that produces LC and FP.
#6
These two products, lube control and fuel power, are worthwhile. I don't sell the stuff but I find them helpful. I am able to run 89 octane with the FP since it increases the potential energy of the fuel. The lube control is a great product to help Amsoil from thickening on an extended drain interval as well as lower the iron and lead that the VQ engine seem to throw off.
Older Amsoil formulations had the ability to absorb fuel dilution. It does not anymore since the natural solvency of gasoline was removed by the EPA mandates.
If this is not enough proof for the doubters, get a expert to interpret your next UOA.
http://www.blackstone-labs.com/dyson_analysis.html
Older Amsoil formulations had the ability to absorb fuel dilution. It does not anymore since the natural solvency of gasoline was removed by the EPA mandates.
If this is not enough proof for the doubters, get a expert to interpret your next UOA.
http://www.blackstone-labs.com/dyson_analysis.html
#7
Originally Posted by johnny2kgle
I am able to run 89 octane with the FP since it increases the potential energy of the fuel.
Octane rating has nothing to do with "potential energy."
Do you even know what potential energy is?
#8
Here's a quick refresher on potential energy for those of you that have forgotten high school physics class:
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssc...rgy/u5l1b.html
Here's a quick refresher on what octane ratings mean:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question90.htm
http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssc...rgy/u5l1b.html
Here's a quick refresher on what octane ratings mean:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question90.htm
#9
Originally Posted by mzmtg
Octane rating has nothing to do with "potential energy."
Do you even know what potential energy is?
#11
Originally Posted by kcryan
hmmmmm no knocking mabye thats because you have a knock sensor?
And yes, the 1MZ-FE V-6 has knock sensors too. . .
By all means, don't use this stuff if you don't want to. I decided to give it a try, and I do like it.
#12
Originally Posted by kcryan
hmmmmm no knocking mabye thats because you have a knock sensor?
That is fine if you think this stuff is snake oil. The reason that premium is required is to eliminate knock which is partly due to deposits in the combustion chamber that cause preignition. Fuel Power solves that problem by raising the octane and burning the fuel more completely.
#15
Originally Posted by Jeff92se
Is this stuff just an octane booster? Nothing new or innovative. In fact Seafoam also has some the same ingredients that up octane.
On a less serious note, FP does have a very pleasant odor (at least to me). Personally, I'm not inclined toward huffing, but if I was, this is the stuff I'd huff. Seriously though, I'd love to see a lab analysis to get a better idea of what's really in FP.
#17
Pinging = detonation NOT preignition. If you had preignition from a hot spot such as a carbon deposit, your piston would be destroyed quickly.
An increase in octane would reduce the tendency of detonation, but have little affect on preignition.
Cleaners powerful enough to remove carbon deposits reduce the chance of detonation by restoring the optimal/lower compression the engine was designed to operate at. The deposits increased compression causing a tendency to detonate.
An increase in octane would reduce the tendency of detonation, but have little affect on preignition.
Cleaners powerful enough to remove carbon deposits reduce the chance of detonation by restoring the optimal/lower compression the engine was designed to operate at. The deposits increased compression causing a tendency to detonate.
Originally Posted by Torkaholic
I'm not really sure of what it contains. I does not appear to be primarily an octane booster, though it may have a moderate influence in that direction. I suspect it is mostly a cleaner, and that it mitigates pre-ignition by reducing deposits that may aggravate irregular burning of the mixture. My primary basis for this conclusion is that the positive effect (major ping reduction) I noted in my V-6 Camry (previous car) came on gradually over about two tanks of fuel.
#19
fuel power msds: http://www.fppf.com/msds/msds_FuelP.pdf
Almost 100% Glycol ether I don't personally know about this
Almost 100% Glycol ether I don't personally know about this
#21
Well, MSDSs are notable for giving the bare minimum or just giving misleading component information. "Glycol ether" isn't complete, especially since they don't provide a Chemical Abstract System registry number. This website says it's a family of ethers http://dangerousproducts.learnwithza...ouncil-135.htm
#22
True BUT:
1) The Glycol Ether content was <= 97%. So what else could be in there.
2) MSDS sheets are only required to show the hazardous portions of the product. But this one should stage all of it's components as required by some states. ie.. New Jersey. But looks like this one is a bit outdated.
It's basicly a solvent. Not much going on here.
1) The Glycol Ether content was <= 97%. So what else could be in there.
2) MSDS sheets are only required to show the hazardous portions of the product. But this one should stage all of it's components as required by some states. ie.. New Jersey. But looks like this one is a bit outdated.
It's basicly a solvent. Not much going on here.
Originally Posted by CCS2k1Max
Well, MSDSs are notable for not giving the bare minimum or just giving misleading component information. "Glycol ether" isn't complete, especially since they don't provide a Chemical Abstract System registry number. This website says it's a family of ethers http://dangerousproducts.learnwithza...ouncil-135.htm
#23
Originally Posted by Jeff92se
True BUT:
1) The Glycol Ether content was <= 97%. So what else could be in there.
2) MSDS sheets are only required to show the hazardous portions of the product. But this one should stage all of it's components as required by some states. ie.. New Jersey. But looks like this one is a bit outdated.
It's basicly a solvent. Not much going on here.
1) The Glycol Ether content was <= 97%. So what else could be in there.
2) MSDS sheets are only required to show the hazardous portions of the product. But this one should stage all of it's components as required by some states. ie.. New Jersey. But looks like this one is a bit outdated.
It's basicly a solvent. Not much going on here.
BTW, The MSDS has to include all the portions of the product above 1% (0.1% if carcinogenic) provided that at least one of the components is hazardous (I have seen some MSDSs w/ 90% water listed).
#25
My guess is that it's made up of one the glycol ethers (that's how I think they pull off the >95% component, but who knows, maybe they are really ballsy and it's a cocktail of glycol ethers plus other components at just below 1%).
#26
Originally Posted by IceY2K1
Pinging = detonation NOT preignition. If you had preignition from a hot spot such as a carbon deposit, your piston would be destroyed quickly.
An increase in octane would reduce the tendency of detonation, but have little affect on preignition.
Cleaners powerful enough to remove carbon deposits reduce the chance of detonation by restoring the optimal/lower compression the engine was designed to operate at. The deposits increased compression causing a tendency to detonate.
An increase in octane would reduce the tendency of detonation, but have little affect on preignition.
Cleaners powerful enough to remove carbon deposits reduce the chance of detonation by restoring the optimal/lower compression the engine was designed to operate at. The deposits increased compression causing a tendency to detonate.
#27
Originally Posted by IceY2K1
Strong fruity smelling solvent per GOOGLE search.
I don't think it's much of a octane increaser.
I don't think it's much of a octane increaser.
Maybe the FP guys got clever and, figuring that most customers would be men, mixed in some "I want you now" human female sex pheromone. . .
#28
Not correct.
Detonation can lead to preignition eventually, but glowing carbon deposits/melted spark plug electrods cause preignition NOT detonation. Preignition is ABSOLUTE and will kill the engine in short time, but detonation while damaging can be withstood for long periods of time. You are talking about detonation previously NOT preignition. Just don't use preignition and you're pretty much correct.
Here read this to understand detonation:
http://www.streetrodstuff.com/Articl...ne/Detonation/
Detonation can lead to preignition eventually, but glowing carbon deposits/melted spark plug electrods cause preignition NOT detonation. Preignition is ABSOLUTE and will kill the engine in short time, but detonation while damaging can be withstood for long periods of time. You are talking about detonation previously NOT preignition. Just don't use preignition and you're pretty much correct.
Here read this to understand detonation:
http://www.streetrodstuff.com/Articl...ne/Detonation/
#29
Haha...I've never personally smelled it, that's just what one website said while another said sweet smell.
Originally Posted by Torkaholic
I'm always amused by attempts to convert perceptions like smell or taste into words. "Fruity" is an interesting description of FP's smell, although not one that I would have chosen. I'd say its about 3/4 of the way from raw acetone to a really nice woman's perfume, if you can imagine such a concept.
Maybe the FP guys got clever and, figuring that most customers would be men, mixed in some "I want you now" human female sex pheromone. . .
Maybe the FP guys got clever and, figuring that most customers would be men, mixed in some "I want you now" human female sex pheromone. . .
#30
Originally Posted by IceY2K1
Not correct.
Detonation can lead to preignition eventually, but glowing carbon deposits/melted spark plug electrods cause preignition NOT detonation. Preignition is ABSOLUTE and will kill the engine in short time, but detonation while damaging can be withstood for long periods of time. You are talking about detonation previously NOT preignition. Just don't use preignition and you're pretty much correct.
Here read this to understand detonation:
http://www.streetrodstuff.com/Articl...ne/Detonation/
Detonation can lead to preignition eventually, but glowing carbon deposits/melted spark plug electrods cause preignition NOT detonation. Preignition is ABSOLUTE and will kill the engine in short time, but detonation while damaging can be withstood for long periods of time. You are talking about detonation previously NOT preignition. Just don't use preignition and you're pretty much correct.
Here read this to understand detonation:
http://www.streetrodstuff.com/Articl...ne/Detonation/
#31
Originally Posted by Jeff92se
fuel power msds: http://www.fppf.com/msds/msds_FuelP.pdf
Almost 100% Glycol ether I don't personally know about this
Almost 100% Glycol ether I don't personally know about this
Question:
“I looked on the FPPF website and could not find a FP Diesel Treatment. It looks like this: FP but with green and blue lettering on the label and with the specific words "Diesel Treatment".”
Anyone know what this stuff is? Is it just regular FP?"
Answer:
“Not the same stuff. "LC20" is lubecontrol and "FP60" is what we know has become known as fuel power.
Jeff and Odis are trying to get the word out of the the lubecontrol fuel treatment formulas real name, "FP60".
I think that Lubecontrol, Inc used the Fuel Power name since the 50's but Odis did not own the formulas until the late 80's and thus someone procured it in that time.”
Here are the links for FP/LC.
http://www.lubecontrol.com/reports.htm
http://www.lubecontrol.com/faq.htm
#33
I do not have the MSDS information on FP/LC. You might try service@lubecontrol.com to get some more information.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jmlee44
4th Generation Maxima (1995-1999)
8
10-02-2022 02:13 PM
My Coffee
New Member Introductions
15
06-06-2017 02:01 PM
Forge277
1st & 2nd Generation Maxima (1981-1984 and 1985-1988)
12
06-13-2016 09:26 PM