Reviews and benefits of an engine additive

[lemust09]

no acetone does not dry as much as we can say ..

since I put almost 100 ml for the full of about 50 l on average ... and two interesting properties this product improves 1 ° fluidity and 2 ° does not change either the octane number or the number of cetane

so we have better combustion and especially less particle on diesel
since after doing tests on tractors for example more or almost more big black smoke ...

ex also on the passage with 4,57 for an old Renault 280 turbo and after having poured 2 l for more than 200 l of GO the rate fell to almost 0,52 interesting not without touching anything to the engine setting


for my returns on a chainsaw the candle after 2 full of black it turns to a light brown and consumes the halves less
voila and therefore works on any type of engine ... voila

for my box or rather my 2 boxes on the merco 320 CDI month from 6l to 130 km / h and the other less than 7 l in road and urban cycle
so for my boxes about 2 l mini see 3 l depending on the route

another colleague on are lemon utility (junpy) small 2 l on average ... not bad !!!

voila but we can put more but not worth wasting anyway we must make a real serious consumption before and then check the new consumption and we can add as long as we lower the consumption ..

but especially a depollution of the engines (especially particles for the old diesels) me I make it my time its walk and I continue to do it ....

[Alain G]

Small up!

For the moment consumption is stable even without additives but my mechanic has inflated my tires which was obviously not adequate by the behavior on the road of my car, by the end of the week I would add Duralube to see if i would gain.

With a load to be towed (1 ton including trailer and UTV and with a large wind restriction)) I seem to have lost torque and my consumption indicates 2l / 100kms more than usual with the same load.

To be continued...

[1360]

Hello,

Those with good memories will recall that I said I wanted to try a "fuel saver" oil additive on different vehicles, but without warning regular drivers so as not to have the psychological effect on the way of driving. , and as a result of distorted consumption statements.

I also wanted to treat construction machines (a Volvo EC-210 LC and a Hitachi Zaxis-3 140 W), but these machines being still under warranty, I did not want to take a risk and did not do the treatment .

As for the cars, I treated a Mitsubishi Lancer 2.0 l 16 V and a Peugeot 308 SW 1.6 l Turbo THP 156 PS (engine developed jointly by Peugeot and BMW).

The Mitsu having been destroyed in an accident shortly after the treatment, I could not make a statement of consumption.

So there remains the Peugeot. This car is a lot of city and a little highway. I gave him the full service (oil change, filters and addition of the Wynn's Fuel Saver additive) on 06.07.2013/100175/7.6 at 100 km. The average consumption of this car over this period was XNUMX liters / XNUMX kms.

This week, I had this vehicle in the workshop for service, it now has 129664 km, or 29489 km since the last oil change and the addition of the additive (manufacturer's recommendation: Oil change every 30000 km).

The driver of this vehicle was not aware of the addition of the additive, she did not change her travel habits, in short, the conditions of use of the last 30000 km were strictly identical to the previous 10000.

Verdict: Consumption has gone from 7.6 L / 100 to 7.7 L / 100.

Even if we do not take into account the deciliter more, we note that there is indeed strictly no change with this additive.

Good Sunday.

[Philippe Schutt]

it's normal for a car to consume more in winter, and that easily represents 0.5 to 1 L.
To really compare it would be necessary to put some more this time.

[1360]

it's normal for a car to consume more in winter, and that easily represents 0.5 to 1 L.
To really compare it would be necessary to put some more this time.

The last oil change was made at the beginning of June 3013, that is 10 months ago with almost a whole summer (2013) and a particularly mild winter (the warmest since the start of the meteorological records)

So I think the conclusion of this test is fair enough. On the product bottle it is marked "Can achieve up to 10% fuel savings". In the case of this Peugeot, we are on an increase, admittedly minimal, but we cannot in any case speak of a decrease in consumption ...

A+

[chatelot16]

The Mitsu having been destroyed in an accident shortly after the treatment, I could not make a statement of consumption.

this treatment causes accidents, so it's really bad

[Alain G]

Hello everybody!

Whatever!

This winter was very cold for us here in Quebec, Canada and no test would have held up and in addition I am no longer able to do a conclusive test since I changed jobs and I am now in traffic very variable and using the remote starter in profusion it would distort the data, I know that I consume 2 liters per 100km less for 2 weeks but probably not because of an additive but the temperature, the car is at its limit oil change (13 km).


To 1360

If you do not realize that this vote has more than a kilo of fact in cold temperatures ...

And many other factors can influence consumption such as spark plugs, injector fouling and winter gasoline which contains propane or ethanol designed for a better start and not for the economy ...

See you!

[Alain G]

For those interested:
following September ... the addition of the Duralube in January with 9000 km on the last oil change demonstrates an immediate consumption of almost 2 liters per 100 less

I reiterate that my vehicle is strongly solicited every week to pull a trailer of a ton and a wall that is my UTV in the trailer very far from being aerodynamic.

[Did67]

To 1360

If you do not realize that this vote has more than a kilo of fact in cold temperatures ...

And many other factors can influence consumption such as spark plugs, injector fouling and winter gasoline which contains propane or ethanol!

You would not be a little bad losers ????

Because who told you that the 100 km of reference were done in summer ???

We have on one side a survey of 100 km, with springs, summers, winters, autumns ... A given type of circuits ... A given type of driving ...

And on the other hand, a statement from June to the end of March; Spring is certainly missing, which is precisely an "average" season, in terms of temperatures! One can reasonably think that this will not shake up the situation.

I thank 1360 for coming back to this question, which we had indeed raised. And of which I impatiently awaited a verdict.

I had somewhere mentioned an old test whose references I unfortunately cannot find, which had "demonstrated" that the driver who is aware, even when he denies it, "adapts" his driving to obtain the effect he wishes to demonstrate [in my case it was a question of converting cars to LPG and quantifying the overconsumption linked to the transformation; there were paradoxical results: onb knows that the GPL has a lower PCI; at "constant power", therefore speed / circuits / driving style, there is a mechanical increase in consumption; many drivers were reporting a drop - just because they were more careful than before].

Blind tests are the only way to have reliable data. And they are almost non-existent!

[Alain G]

To 1360

If you do not realize that this vote has more than a kilo of fact in cold temperatures ...

And many other factors can influence consumption such as spark plugs, injector fouling and winter gasoline which contains propane or ethanol!

You would not be a little bad losers ????

Because who told you that the 100 km of reference were done in summer ???

We have on one side a survey of 100 km, with springs, summers, winters, autumns ... A given type of circuits ... A given type of driving ...

And on the other hand, a statement from June to the end of March; Spring is certainly missing, which is precisely an "average" season, in terms of temperatures! One can reasonably think that this will not shake up the situation.

I thank 1360 for coming back to this question, which we had indeed raised. And of which I impatiently awaited a verdict.

I had somewhere mentioned an old test whose references I unfortunately cannot find, which had "demonstrated" that the driver who is aware, even when he denies it, "adapts" his driving to obtain the effect he wishes to demonstrate [in my case it was a question of converting cars to LPG and quantifying the overconsumption linked to the transformation; there were paradoxical results: onb knows that the GPL has a lower PCI; at "constant power", therefore speed / circuits / driving style, there is a mechanical increase in consumption; many drivers were reporting a drop - just because they were more careful than before].

Blind tests are the only way to have reliable data. And they are almost non-existent!

Hello Did

The caculator, the cruise control and the km reading on a tank do not lie especially that I was still doing the same journey which is no longer possible for me but when I drive 120 km / h on a highway without wind with the regulator and I see over several days and I see 2 l / 100km less and almost 100 km more traveled with the same tank without modifying my driving well it does not lie ...

For small diesel engines I can not comment because I do not have the opportunity to test.

There are skeptics who do not believe it and those who have personally tried it who see an improvement but hey everything has already been said on the subject just read the subject from the beginning ...