copemech Posted January 5, 2008 Report Share Posted January 5, 2008 As a "field engineer" in the auto industry, seems we never know exactly what to expect coming down the pipe nowadays! Basically the "gas" is nothing but a mixture of hydrocarbons and additives, then oxigenated with alcohol or something which will achieve less mileage and somewhat cleaner output! E85 is worse as I understand!As far as fuel economy goes, there is simply not as much energy in alcohol as there is what we call gasoline! I can deal with that, the fuel sucks basically, even the 93 octane premimum does not run well in motors that are not designed to deal with it, gaining nothing but unburnt residues! It will not neccessarily achieve you better mileage or performance in a engine that is not designed for it!! All that being said, the question comes to mind of the Techron additive, iniatiated by Chevron and I believe recently adopted by Shell and possibly others. This stuff is basically proven to reduce carbon buildup in automotive use. Will the same hold true in a 2T motor? Will it have the same cleaning effect? It is available as a concentrated cleaning additive, that is effective and proven as well. Will it work in breaking up hard carbon deposits throughout a 2T exhaust? Keeping things clean? I have been tempted to do some experimentation, yet would prefer to rely on prior testing if possible, as there is not anything really new here, someone knows the answer already! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biffsgasgas Posted January 5, 2008 Report Share Posted January 5, 2008 I actually posted about a different product here in this post yamaha ring free. Haven't tried it yet but i am glad that you brought this up. I too want to find an less evasive way to clean deposites http://www.trialscentral.com/forums/index....9&hl=marine At Fo mo co we promote Chevron techron 2 (2 makes it diesel safe 1 was alchohol based 2 is keroseen based i believe both have a huge additive package) to clean up fuel deposites on sending units. It is supposed to make a protective film on the copper sending unit while cleaning off the calicium and sulfer deposits left by fuel. These deposits have been known to cause opens in the sending unit. But as for combustion deposits i have not heard of any huge results. In the oems we are always concentrating on 2-3 model year back results. Now I do know of a product that hands down changed my life when it came to carbon build up but I can not find it any where. Chrysler had a complete intake cleaning system that was arasol based. You had to keep the idle up and spray this stuff in. Then as soon as the can was done you shut the vehicle off for 15 mins. It built foam on everything! even exhaust manifolds. 15 min later you start her up and kill every bug for a 5 mile radius because you will billow smoke from any car that has over 1000 miles on it. Using borescope the stuff made a night and day difference even on the back of valves. I was told that it was highly epa non friendly and they had problems of valve damage due to chunks of carbon trying to be passed so they offed the product. I never tried it on a 2 stroke but having used it in the past in the lab we found great results. Have you used water? Get the engine hot. Pull the air filter and raise the rpm to about 4000 and spray a short mist of water in the intake with out your air filter out. Just a couple of puffs and let it smooth out. Repeat a couple of times and just a light mist. We did that on my old gasgas and an 02 sherco of my buddies and both times we got chunks out. They did that in radial engines in the military to cool intake temps and clean turbos. Dont spray too much. Up north we clean creasoat from chimneys by leaving a bowl of amonia in the wood stove over the summer. Come back in the winter and send down a broom and the stuff falls right off the wall. I dont know if that works in this case with a trials bike because i cant go without my manifold for more than a week..... get that burning itch sensation. wow long winded today.... Tomorrow a bunch of us trials guys are off to rays mountain bike... www.raysmtb.com --Biff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biffsgasgas Posted January 5, 2008 Report Share Posted January 5, 2008 btw i don't want to give the impression that i am a fuels expert I am just a lowly Product concern engineer here in detroit that works with the design and specialist engineers to help resolve issues in the field. My degree is in manufacturing with emphasis on automotive engine design and release. My job is to relay field information to the engineers and then getting that back to the field in the form of tsb's. I get to see a lot of stuff in the pipe line through training and did a lot with fuels in college but i am no chemist. Internet personalities can be deceiving and i don't want to make my self out to be a guru in fuels or anything..... and like yourself i am looking for a good alternative as well. there thats the disclaimer --Biff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jse Posted January 5, 2008 Report Share Posted January 5, 2008 As the old geezer in the bunch, I'll throw in an old mechanic's trick from the 50-60's, although I doubt it would work as well in the high-tech engines of today. I was working as an apprentice mechanic to support my scholastic life at the University and a very old mechanic taught me this one, which at the time worked very well. He would take a pint jar and fill it with a 50/50 mix of water and old brake fluid, dribble it down the carb at moderate RPMs carefully so as to not kill the engine, dump the last part of it to stop the engine and wait about an hour. Start it up, kill all insect life within a mile radius and voila!, carbon gone with the bugs. The old engines were fun to play with but prone to carbon problems, in part due to the primitive fuel systems. Course, the good thing at the time is that was that Chevron had 102 octane Supreme at the pumps for 25 cents..... Jon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copemech Posted January 6, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2008 I could go on about this for hours but it it too late tonight, none of the old school methods cleared out blocked EGR passages and still will not! My experience leads me to believe that this Techron stuff will tend to break down just about any fuel residue or carbon that it comes in contact with over time. That includes the exhaust pipe and muffler in a 2T, as there is a fair amount of unburned stuff going downstream. The point here being to keep things flowing! That is the theory, anyway! Although the added 2T OILS CAN BE A CHALLENGE, I can say that headpipe removal and inspection after running the Maxima K2 all year is good! Next to no hard carbon on the piston and first part of the header pipe, a bit of buildup further down and into the muff front section, but not bad. Ant that is where some of these things plug up completely as things go. And yes, more about the specific concentration of this stuff than anything. A large dose, as in the Mopar combustion chamber cleaner can have massive effects! A small dose, such as what comes mixed in their fuel, may have little effect aginst the 2T oils residue which it was not designed to compete with, but a bit more, which would keep things in motion, mat just do the trick! The label on the bottle does say "Not recommended for air cooled two cycle engines!" Now I am worried about my seals! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betapete Posted January 8, 2008 Report Share Posted January 8, 2008 just move to the uk and get 99 RON at the pump, for $2.50 approx per litre!!!! seriously tho, techron doesnt really clean up on carbon emissions and as for eradacating carbon build up........nothing will beat a scraper and cleaning fluid its all a big con in my eyes some of the race engines i design and build use 120 octane, as its the only thing which prevents detonation running massive boost and ignition advance, they are benzene and sulphur free and burn very cleanly, and its leaded.....no valve seat recession for me lol, never tried it in a 2 t tho.....guess what the rev 3 is getting in it on sat lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copemech Posted January 8, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2008 (edited) Just because it has greater resistance to detonation(higher octane) does not neccessarily mean that it will run better or perform well in a motor not designed to use it! It may actually cost you power as it does not ignite or burn as redily under those circumstances. It may smooth your motor because of power loss though! Lead(TEL) does nothing for a 2T except possibly help foul sparkies with residue! And create more on the piston! And in the exhaust! "seriously tho, techron doesnt really clean up on carbon emissions and as for eradacating carbon build up........nothing will beat a scraper and cleaning fluid" It has been proven to work in auto engines for years now, go scrape the valves and pistons on your car! Edited January 8, 2008 by copemech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betapete Posted January 8, 2008 Report Share Posted January 8, 2008 you boys over there need to work on your sense of humor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian r Posted January 8, 2008 Report Share Posted January 8, 2008 I OBJECT, That was a generalization. 6 people over here DO have a sense of humor!!! Of course one of those was from England. Still leave 5! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betapete Posted January 8, 2008 Report Share Posted January 8, 2008 nice one mate!!!! By 'eck they love deleting posts on here dont they?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosey Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 Has anybody checked out on a dyno the difference between low octane fuels and high ones on a trials engine? I heard of an incident at the Goodwood Festival a couple of years ago with BP when they tested two Saabs on a rolling road and the lower octane fuel made more bhp on a standard Vauhall 9-3 turbo... Oh sorry Saab 9-3 turbo Something to do with ethanol being used to get RON up but having less enegy than petrol.... anyway they swapped the cars over on the dyno's, then the fuel in the cars and found out the lower RON fuel made more peak power on these Vauxhall Vectras... erm Saab 9-3 turbos So unless the ethanol os really required to stop the engine 'knocking' its borrix off then I wonder if there is an element of p155ing into the wind by going for high RON tesco pump 99 (I'll have a 99 with the two flakes please plus a bit of diesel and other unidentified fluids... thanks!. Any Raspberry Sauce?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copemech Posted January 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 Has anybody checked out on a dyno the difference between low octane fuels and high ones on a trials engine?I heard of an incident at the Goodwood Festival a couple of years ago with BP when they tested two Saabs on a rolling road and the lower octane fuel made more bhp on a standard Vauhall 9-3 turbo... Oh sorry Saab 9-3 turbo Something to do with ethanol being used to get RON up but having less enegy than petrol.... anyway they swapped the cars over on the dyno's, then the fuel in the cars and found out the lower RON fuel made more peak power on these Vauxhall Vectras... erm Saab 9-3 turbos So unless the ethanol os really required to stop the engine 'knocking' its borrix off then I wonder if there is an element of p155ing into the wind by going for high RON tesco pump 99 (I'll have a 99 with the two flakes please plus a bit of diesel and other unidentified fluids... thanks!. Any Raspberry Sauce?) I told you Rosey was a bright lad, yes, I believe there was a similar study done sometime back by one young Bechard lad that yielded similar results. Bit of a science project, yet not sure how scientificly it was done. Yet I tend to agree with the results! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabnabit Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 (edited) Check This, Section 7.8 and This out. Edited January 10, 2008 by Dabnabit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan bechard Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 I told you Rosey was a bright lad, yes, I believe there was a similar study done sometime back by one young Bechard lad that yielded similar results. Bit of a science project, yet not sure how scientificly it was done. Yet I tend to agree with the results! Actually Cope it was the Bechard Lass, but it was not scientific enough to really draw conclusions from. (jetting etc, not adjusted for the different fuels etc. repeatability) Then again, I bet not many science fair exhibits included Sherco's running on a Dyno Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jse Posted January 11, 2008 Report Share Posted January 11, 2008 "Has anybody checked out on a dyno the difference between low octane fuels and high ones on a trials engine? I heard of an incident at the Goodwood Festival a couple of years ago with BP when they tested two Saabs on a rolling road and the lower octane fuel made more bhp on a standard Vauhall 9-3 turbo... Oh sorry Saab 9-3 turbo Something to do with ethanol being used to get RON up but having less enegy than petrol.... anyway they swapped the cars over on the dyno's, then the fuel in the cars and found out the lower RON fuel made more peak power on these Vauxhall Vectras... erm Saab 9-3 turbos So unless the ethanol os really required to stop the engine 'knocking' its borrix off then I wonder if there is an element of p155ing into the wind by going for high RON tesco pump 99 (I'll have a 99 with the two flakes please plus a bit of diesel and other unidentified fluids... thanks!. Any Raspberry Sauce?)" I agree, the high-octane vs. low-octane fuel in Trials engines whirlwind can be really confusing. I can see where the Saab Turbo runoffs yielded those results as the octane vs hp output is like comparing apples vs oranges. The use of ethanol would possibly up the RON-research octane number- (although MON- motor octane number- is a better comparison as the testing uses more "severe" ambient conditions) alcohol has less energy per pound than gasoline. I'm not sure that the Saab engine management system can fully compensate in order to make use of the alcohol/gasoline mix to fully yield it's potential. The only reason that alcohol make high hp numbers in race engines specifically designed to use it, is that you can run a ton of it through an engine due to it stochiometric ratio i.e. you need less oxygen to get a complete burn. Essentially, one of the main reasons to use a high octane fuel is that it allows one to use power producing modifications that otherwise would result in engine damaging detonation. I always recommend that a rider use a slightly higher octane rating than his/her engine actually "needs" because actual octane requirement in an engine is not a static figure and can vary according to things like ambient weather conditions affecting jetting and mud on the radiator fins affecting cooling system effeciency, for instance. Another "octane effect" (slower burning properties) is that higher octane fuel affects the IMEP (all other conditions, like jetting, being equal), "Indicated Mean Effective Pressure", and I run 110 race fuel in my 280 Pro to soften the initial "hit" and smooth out the bottom end response without having to slot the Hall Effect sensor (magnetic pickup sensor that triggers the CDI) and retard the static timing (my Pro does not have the variable timing maps of the later ones). Jon To paraphrase a line from the movie, Apocalypse Now, "I love the smell of Nitromethane in the morning. It smells like victory" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.