When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I didn’t say the detergent residue was enough to do any harm. I just said it was measurable, and did no good. My basis for saying that is that when we tested various additive packages for our gas, once we had reached an optimum amount, doubling or tripling that amount made things very slightly dirtier. Not enough dirtier to worry about. But the point is, dirtier, not cleaner.
As far as whether routine use of extra additive reduces the odds of having a fuel gauge problem, to determine that, you’d have to do a controlled test. You’d have to have one group of cars using extra additive and another group of cars not using it, and then see if there was a difference in the number from each group that had gas gauge problems. No such test has been done, and the difference, if any, is not large enough for the answer to be obvious without doing the test.
20 years ago, rotating brands made some sense. At that time, one brand would be better on valves, another on carburetors (remember them?), another on piston crowns, etc. But these days, all additives have gotten better so that differences among brands are smaller. Even the standard, EPA-required package in the cheapo brands isn’t horrid. But once you get to top tier brands, differences are negligible. Having said that, switching around among top tier brands won’t hurt anything. But I wouldn’t expect it to be significantly better than staying with one top tier brand.
Detergent cleans carbon deposits, and up to a point, self-cleans its own deposits. Self-cleaning its own deposits means that the detergent you use today makes new detergent deposits today, but it also cleans up the detergent deposits you made on previous days. So there’s an equilibrium balance. Up to a point, more detergent removes more junk than it adds, with junk meaning the combination of carbon deposits and detergent deposits. But at some point, adding more detergent adds more new detergent residue than it removes in carbon deposits plus old detergent deposits.
This is a year old thread. Not sure why C5arlen and particularly, Logan are resurrecting it, as most have probably long since forgotten the background context. But that said, some are always going to be fans of additives no matter what is said. The forum does have a few hard core additive fans, so I’m not going to try to talk you out of your beliefs. But Logan, there’s no point in being snide about it. In several posts throughout the thread, I logically, and with no disrespect to anyone, presented the case against extra additives. If you choose not to believe me, fine, but that’s no reason to start spewing a-holes, pollute, rambling gibberish, etc. I think Buckmeister puts it well – use additives if they make you feel better. My opinion for the reasons in my various posts is that it won’t help, but I readily concede that it won’t hurt much either. And thanks CorvetteEd for the kind words.
Just to throw in a little of my own limited knowledge, I recently discovered Techron Concentrate Plus Complete Fuel System Cleaner. I believe it is a bit different than the standard Techron found in Top Tier gas and gas additive. It's ad says it "Cleans, restores, and protects the entire fuel system, including the operation of sulfurcontaminated fuel gauge sensors." The fuel gauge in my Tahoe started to act up recently so I gave it a try. I added it to a fill-up and included a little erratic driving to mix it. I then parked a couple of days to let it soak. It seems to have worked so far (about a month). I'm sure the Tahoe and Vette units are not identical but I bet they are cousins.
Just to throw in a little of my own limited knowledge, I recently discovered Techron Concentrate Plus Complete Fuel System Cleaner. I believe it is a bit different than the standard Techron found in Top Tier gas and gas additive. It's ad says it "Cleans, restores, and protects the entire fuel system, including the operation of sulfurcontaminated fuel gauge sensors." The fuel gauge in my Tahoe started to act up recently so I gave it a try. I added it to a fill-up and included a little erratic driving to mix it. I then parked a couple of days to let it soak. It seems to have worked so far (about a month). I'm sure the Tahoe and Vette units are not identical but I bet they are cousins.
As noted in my posts 2, 10, and 12, as well as posts from others in this and other threads, there are enough stories about Techron and/or other additives curing gas gauge problems that it obviously works in some cases. But it just as obviously doesn’t work in all cases, nor is there any data to say how often it works as a cure, or how well (if at all) it works as a preventive measure. After all, most people don’t use extra additives, and most people don’t have gas gauge problems. But clearly, if you have a gas gauge failure, you should try extra additives since they are so much cheaper than gas gauge repair. Beyond that, it’s guesswork.
The sulfur explanation that so many cite doesn’t really make sense. Gas contained 500-1000 parts per million (ppm) sulfur until about 2005 (I forget the exact year). Regulations then reduced it to 30ppm, and just this year it was reduced further to 10ppm. So if you think the answer is sulfur, you have to explain how/why gas gauges worked ok prior to 2005, when sulfur levels were 60 to 75 times higher than today, or 20 to 25 time higher than in the interval from 2005 to last year. We’d all like to know in a confident, cause/effect manner what causes and what will fix gas gauge problems. Unfortunately, that firm knowledge does not yet exist.
As noted in my posts 2, 10, and 12, as well as posts from others in this and other threads, there are enough stories about Techron and/or other additives curing gas gauge problems that it obviously works in some cases. But it just as obviously doesn’t work in all cases, nor is there any data to say how often it works as a cure, or how well (if at all) it works as a preventive measure. After all, most people don’t use extra additives, and most people don’t have gas gauge problems. But clearly, if you have a gas gauge failure, you should try extra additives since they are so much cheaper than gas gauge repair. Beyond that, it’s guesswork.
The sulfur explanation that so many cite doesn’t really make sense. Gas contained 500-1000 parts per million (ppm) sulfur until about 2005 (I forget the exact year). Regulations then reduced it to 30ppm, and just this year it was reduced further to 10ppm. So if you think the answer is sulfur, you have to explain how/why gas gauges worked ok prior to 2005, when sulfur levels were 60 to 75 times higher than today, or 20 to 25 time higher than in the interval from 2005 to last year. We’d all like to know in a confident, cause/effect manner what causes and what will fix gas gauge problems. Unfortunately, that firm knowledge does not yet exist.
I totally acknowledge mine is anecdotal evidence. But for $6 and one successful conclusion, I'll bypass the cost and wait for scientific evidence. Yeah, I know know the snake oil industry thrives on this. But as long as it causes no harm, I'll be a beta tester. I do appreciate you sharing your knowledge.
This is a year old thread. Not sure why C5arlen and particularly, Logan are resurrecting it, as most have probably long since forgotten the background context. But that said, some are always going to be fans of additives no matter what is said. The forum does have a few hard core additive fans, so I’m not going to try to talk you out of your beliefs. But Logan, there’s no point in being snide about it. In several posts throughout the thread, I logically, and with no disrespect to anyone, presented the case against extra additives. If you choose not to believe me, fine, but that’s no reason to start spewing a-holes, pollute, rambling gibberish, etc. I think Buckmeister puts it well – use additives if they make you feel better. My opinion for the reasons in my various posts is that it won’t help, but I readily concede that it won’t hurt much either. And thanks CorvetteEd for the kind words.
So your opinions = good and my opinions = bad. Got it! Also, you aren't the only one that can decipher the glyphs above the screen names. Don't assume that I'm talking about you and get all righteous about it. Yes, rambling gibberish, the exact observation I made about another poster. You'll find their screen name in the quoted part of my post.
Now quit hijacking threads with your unwanted, negative opinions. People like you are the very reason I'm like this. CF is filled with informative threads. Your conjecture pollutes them and makes correct info hard to find.
So your opinions = good and my opinions = bad. Got it! Also, you aren't the only one that can decipher the glyphs above the screen names. Don't assume that I'm talking about you and get all righteous about it. Yes, rambling gibberish, the exact observation I made about another poster. You'll find their screen name in the quoted part of my post.
Now quit hijacking threads with your unwanted, negative opinions. People like you are the very reason I'm like this. CF is filled with informative threads. Your conjecture pollutes them and makes correct info hard to find.
I was well aware that your comments in post #42 weren’t directed at me since I hadn’t said the things you quoted. I was reacting to the fact that you were disrespecting other people’s comments. On the other hand, post #52 does attack me directly for polluting otherwise informative threads with conjecture and hijacking threads with unwanted, negative opinions. But if you read very many of my posts, you’ll see that I’m careful to differentiate between conjecture and facts, with the facts coming from a career as a chemical engineer with a major oil company dealing with fuels and lubes. As to my opinions being unwanted or negative, the track record suggests otherwise.
In this particular thread, there is admittedly some conjecture about the gas gauge issue since facts are not firmly established. But I thought I was pretty careful to admit that, leaving you free to form your own opinions based on your own interpretation of the sketchy few facts that are known. Sorry if that equated to thread pollution in your eyes. There is also some mild negativity in that where the engine cleanliness function is concerned, hard and real data says that extra additives aren’t needed if you use top tier. But I don’t see that as thread hijacking or overly negative. I see it as putting facts out there, and then letting people reach their own conclusions.
I was well aware that your comments in post #42 weren’t directed at me since I hadn’t said the things you quoted. I was reacting to the fact that you were disrespecting other people’s comments. On the other hand, post #52 does attack me directly for polluting otherwise informative threads with conjecture and hijacking threads with unwanted, negative opinions. But if you read very many of my posts, you’ll see that I’m careful to differentiate between conjecture and facts, with the facts coming from a career as a chemical engineer with a major oil company dealing with fuels and lubes. As to my opinions being unwanted or negative, the track record suggests otherwise.
In this particular thread, there is admittedly some conjecture about the gas gauge issue since facts are not firmly established. But I thought I was pretty careful to admit that, leaving you free to form your own opinions based on your own interpretation of the sketchy few facts that are known. Sorry if that equated to thread pollution in your eyes. There is also some mild negativity in that where the engine cleanliness function is concerned, hard and real data says that extra additives aren’t needed if you use top tier. But I don’t see that as thread hijacking or overly negative. I see it as putting facts out there, and then letting people reach their own conclusions.
I always enjoy reading your posts. They are always something other than the usual urban myths and anecdotal "proof."
Call me whatever, but I try to read very carefully the posts of others and I'm like Bruze and HB: thanks, LDB for you thought put into each post and leaving the conclusion to be drawn by the readers.
Call me whatever, but I try to read very carefully the posts of others and I'm like Bruze and HB: thanks, LDB for you thought put into each post and leaving the conclusion to be drawn by the readers.
HUM.....kinda sounds like one of those news shows...."We report, you decide"......
Designer Imagines A Corvette That Looks More Like a Corvette Than the Corvette
Slideshow: A Jaguar designer's personal project imagines what a modern front-engined Corvette might look like if Chevrolet revisited the golden age of the Stingray.