MAYBE....but I'm thinking, "placebo". Why? Let's take something that we KNOW makes more power; Nitro methane. If we poured a 16 oz bottle of Nitro into our ~20 gallons of gasoline, how much diff would it make. I'm betting "not much" -as in, unmeasurable. I may be wrong here...I haven't tried it, but I doubt 16oz in 20 gal would do squat. I'd go further to bet that the stuff in that can isn't nitro methane.

As for climbing hills, that is a pretty good measure -better than most people do. I'd ask if the correlation is repeatable and consistent. I had a truck that would climb a hill here (same hill every time) that is 13 miles long and rises ~3000'. The truck would do it in 5th gear @75 mph, most days...but some days it wouldn't. Some days it would lose mph in 5th gear. What caused the diff? Weather. But even with that semi objective, noticeable difference on the grade, the power when driving around town was the same, SOTP. You couldn't tell the difference. So I can't imagine how this product will "gives you a “seat-of-the-pants” jolt that makes driving fun again". No way. You're brain is doing that part.


.

 

Aklim is right. Water cleans piston tops for no money -if "clean piston tops" is important to you. But more importantly, the carbon build up on piston tops is not cumulative; it doesn't just keep building and building for the life or the car; a thin lay forms on the part that aren't washed by gasoline, and then it burns off and gets washed at the same rate that it "builds"...the net gain in build up at that point is zero. Unless you have an issue such as oil burning or some other problem. Carbon build up in a properly running engine is a non-issue.

 

I use this hill to drive to work and whether its cold or hot out the same results, until I used the product I mentioned I was never able to get over 60 mph going up that hill thats why i feel it makes a measurable difference it would be grate to do a dyno comparison as Aklim mentioned but I will leave that at the hands of people with more time and money than I have.

 

Copy that. Maybe next time I go to the track I'll put it in. I'd bet money that it wouldn't make one wit of difference, but I'd try it in the name of science and fact finding.

 

I hope to make it back to Numidia for test and tune come spring, I did make some changes to the tune but maybe I will do the first couple of runs on plain pump gas then add some power boost and will compare are results.

 

If you do, please post the results. I'll do the same if I remember this, come April.

 

Unless the gas is bad or the octane is lower than spec and the engine is detonating, I don't see how it will do anything. It definitely might take more than that little nitro to do anything other than bump the octane if the octane is lower than it should be. Would 16 oz of something actually have that much to raise the energy levels? I doubt it.

 

And who should that be? IMO, it should be the peddlers of the snake oil that commissions an INDEPENDENT testing laboratory that is accredited to do this. If all they have is testimonials and not publish a reputable laboratory report, why doesn't that make you curious?

 

as long as the end user is happy with it, thats what matters.

 

True. Wonder why we got so upset with Madoff. Lots of his end users were happy, till the end, that is. Like I have said before, fools and their money SHOULD be parted. Unfortunately the law doesn't seem to agree with me on that being the order of things.

 

some one needs to by you a violin.

 

I used to play one when I was 7 years old for a few years. Besides, I wouldn't ask someone to buy me something. I'd rather make the money the old fashioned way by selling bridges. Speaking of which, I just came into possession of one. One owner, slightly used and well maintained. Either timeshare or outright sale. Due to the low price, cash only. Non Sequential bills and nothing larger than a $20.

 

Ok I think we high jacked this thread as much as we should have.

 

Get in on some of this quick ....


http://www.lunarlandowner.com/

 

The owner's manual for our cars state premium is recommended but not required and there may be a reduced performance with 87 octane. I found similar notes for the L98, LT1, and LT5.

The following is quoted from the '96 manual as representative although the wording changed slightly on different years/engines.
"If you have the 5.7L Code P engine, use premium unleaded gasoline rated at 91 octane or higher for best performance. You may use middle grade or regular unleaded gasolines, but your vehicle may not accelerate as well."

The L98's had a couple different statements. The '85 manual states unleaded fuel, but no recommendation for premium fuel. My '87 manual has a statement similar to the '96 manual quoted above. I think the change from unleaded fuel with no premium recommendation to the premium fuel recommendation was with the change to the aluminum head engines, but I can not confirm that with the late '86 model.


However the LT4 says premium is required and does not have the note about using lower octanes and possible reduced performance. The LT4 has higher compression and 87 octane is not enough. Even the black trim around the filler is different where the molded in lettering on the LT4's trim says premium fuel required, where the LT1's say premium fuel recommended.

The following is quoted from the '96 manual for the LT4.
"If you have the 5.7L Code 5 engine, use premium unleaded gasoline rated at 91 octane or higher."



So I disagree that premium is not needed on all our cars. I believe is is needed for sure on the LT4, and may help on others.

On most of my cars I have tried regular. My '85 regular ran fine. My '87 regular ran fine. My '88 regular would have a hard knock under load. My '94 ran fine. My '95 senses knock and retards timing so it runs worse. My '96 LT4 runs great (I only use premium in it).

If the car does not need higher octane, it is a waste to buy premium. The way to know is to try the lower octane and see if the car's performance degrades.

 

I would datalog knock sensor vs rpm vs CTS

 

I was talking about the '88 that Kevova was referring to...not all C4's. But that was a great post with good data.