There are no reports of failed cats and lots of reports of passing emissions tests. Even in California.

The generally accepted concensus is that the ashless TC-W3 two stroke oil in question is mandated by specification to burn cleanly even at the normal concentrations and be compatible with catalytic converters where fitted.

In the four stroke fuel additive usage, it is at much lower concentrations. There are a number of people who have pointed out that GM stipulates that 1 quart of engine oil in 500 miles is considered "normal" for warranty purposes ... including catalytic converters and O2 sensors. The arithmetic has been done more rigorously ... but let's postulate 25 MPG for that 500 miles. Under the US fluid measurement system, that would be 32 fluid ounces in 500/25 gallons. Therefore, 32 fluid ounces in 40 gallons. The baseline dosage of the TC-W3 is 1 fluid ounce in 5 gallons. Therefore, 8 ounces in 40 gallons.

The GM spec for allowable oil consumption is 4 times higher and that spec has to allow for the GM warranty obligation on emissions related systems.

It is further explained by advocates that unlike engine oil, the TC-W3 does not contain heavy metals to coat catalytic converters and that the detergents are organic based.

So, the weight of the evidence is in favour of safe usage under emissions considerations.

 

Just to make this stand separate from other discussion ... here are the canonical references:

the original discussion/disclosure posted by "Sarge":

Been testing

ongoing discussions at bobistheoilguy in the fuel additives sub-forum:

Fuels and Fuel Additives: Gasoline and Diesel - Bob Is The Oil Guy

What is notable about the discussions at the above link is that with 15 threads per index page, there seems to be at least 1 thread per 2 index pages on TC-W3 in the subject title. So far, I have gone back 35 index pages. And in those discussions, it is notable that they are mostly technical discussions with only the odd nay sayer. This is very different from the usual tone over there where posters are very quickly corrected by long time members if they are running counter to concensus.

In other words, the use of TC-W3 in the role of four stroke fuel additive is well regarded in a community that is usually very quick to call snake oil.

BTW, there are older members over there that remind users that this practice has upper cylinder lubricants as the precedent. They call this UCL since they seem to have an acronym for everything.

There is one user over there who manages a farm of industrial stationary four-stroke engines under heavy load which have had this usage of TC-W3. In that case, the fuel consumption, engine conditions, and required repairs are carefully logged on a daily basis. He is adamant that they will continue to use TC-W3 due to the observed benefits.

 

Thanks for the info, Plums. I just poured just under 2 oz of Pennzoil Marine 2-cycle outboard oil in my gas tank which is about half full. I don't have any idling issues - steady at about 600 or 700 rpm - but I'm looking at this as a preventative maintenance measure with respect to the fuel pump, etc.

 

Well make sure you come back and render your verdict. Despite the popularity at bitog, this is all new territory at JF.

You may be interested to know that another frequently claimed benefit is sparkling clean injectors. Another poster at bitog removed his exhaust manifold and found it free of the usual carbon deposits.

Guess we'll see.

BTW, all credit goes to JF member "doc" as he provided the first link to new territory

 

Well here is some class I anecdotal evidence.. (!)
I used about 2mL per litre of petrol when I filled my Subaru flat-6 SUV 4 days ago, and it has since done about 150 miles on this tank.
I drove it tonight and it is definitely subjectively anecdotally idling more smoothly, and is smoother at lower driving revs, eg: 1500rpm around town. The horizontally-opposed-6 is not the smoothest engine, but seems happier with some oil in the petrol. I bought the Evinrude XD-100 fully synthetic stuff - supposedly 'ashless, smokeless, odorless'

the X300 Daimler is off the road for a few more days - new water hose, harmonic balancer, front suspension bushes and driveshaft hanger bearing (droning above 60km/h). Once it's back on the road, I am going to fill up with petrol and more 2-stroke oil. the engine has adjusted to Andy's 5' bracket, so the oil is the next stepwise 'experiment'.

I have just seen a good 1995 6-litre V12 LWB Daimler for sale...

 

Awesome posting Guys
Just think our jaguars might live forever that is a nice thought we are definitely doing our bit for the environment keeping our cars in top shape instead of being replaced with new ones LOL

I still want an early XKR preferably fully modified by paramount would be really nice but here in Australia we cant import cars after 1989 unless you meet strict criteria

So it is off the table over here as they still want 40 grand plus for standard one with high milage over here

I have basically rebuilt my X300 XJR from front to rear

And at 40 grand then starting to get it right its to expensive but I live in hope

 

Well, I have *finally* finished scanning/reading all the threads dealing with TCW3 over at bitog in the 147 index pages ... and done a grand total of 3.5 miles.

Took a second video without the jar lid on the bottle before that 3.5

 

Have you done any mileage yet Plums with the TC-W3
I am always curious to hear what others have to say
I actually ran around on a full tank till it was empty then refilled drove around again for a while then added it again to my surprise my but dyno said yes it does do something LOL

 

A grand total of maybe 25 miles.

Way too soon to tell.

 

That sounds a bit absurd. That means burning nearly all of your oil (in a typical I4 or v6 GM engine) before a typical 3,0000 mile conventional oil change. Of course, we have the idiot light to tell us to add more. But, that GM service manager would have quite an angry customer if I had to add a quart of oil every 2 weeks on a car that was under warranty.

 

It is what it is.

The point as made on bitog by others using this example is simply that the amount of TC-W3 introduced into the fuel stream is minor compared to what a manufacturer deems safe for the cats/sensors.

Whether a GM customer would be satisfied or not does not change the validity of the argument.

 

Having spent 30 years working at GM (and other) dealership parts and service departments
I feel qualified to chime in on this :-)

For ages and ages and ages...decades.... the GM standard was 1 quart/1000 miles. In reality this was seldom an issue. Only a tiny percentage of cars ever had an oil consumption issue and those that did usually used quite a bit more than that.

A few years ago (maybe 10 years...time flies, you know) GM changed acceptable consumption to "one quart of oil for every 100 gallons of fuel used".

In any case it takes one helluva lotta oil consumption to hurt a cat convertor.

I'll add that I'm half way thru my first tankful of TCW3 enhanced gasoline. I couldn't resist temptation :-).

When am I supposed to feel all the good things happening ?

Cheers
DD

 

Glad you chimed in on the GM thing as it is far more reliable to hear it from you as opposed to "as seen on the internet".

Some people have reported differences right away. I think that is doubtful.

A couple of tankfuls would be reasonable in my opinion. But the long term benefits might never be noticable because they involve preventing bad things from happening.

A couple of things to look for would be smoother idle and faster starting. Of course, if the car was already in good condition, these improvements are going to be much smaller.

A long trip is coming up where I know the usual fuel consumption. Unfortunately, it will not be a valid test as it also involves a new alignment with the excessive rear toe reduced to almost zero. That change would naturally be expected to have a positive effect on mileage ... in addition to correcting a dancing rear end in slush.

 

Looking forward to your reviews on fuel consumption after your trip Plums

Also your feedback Doug

I understand it sounds crazy using TC-W3 in our cars but you don't know till you try do you LOL

I wont be using my car for a while again until I figure out the reason why the throttle hangs or sticks or self drives but that's another post I am following

 

I'm over a tankful in with the TCW3 and can report faster warm restarts, although I'll temper my excitement because this experiment is coinciding, almost to the day, with warmer temperatures here in Florida. But the warm restarts are very fast, and I think faster than they were before winter arrived.

Also, and less striking, the car just seems to run smoother and accelerate more smoothly....

MPG-wise, I'll probably never know if there's an improvement since my weekly travels differ greatly.

We'll see if any other nice surprises occur.

 

Oh, and I've now added my daughter's car and my riding lawnmower to the experiment. My wife, for now, is restricting me from going near her truck's gas tank :-).

 

Have been looking at the 2 stroke oils for my diesel as tests did show benefits.


However after further study I also found out that the same benefits where achieved with addition of ethanol (or probbaly beter said bio fuel, as shown in the link below) and as that’s standard over here now, there’s no need for adding 2 stroke oil, and I've never did.


I have never studied it for gasoline cars though, so don’t know if there could be similarities.

Edit: Found the info:
http://www.johnfjensen.com/Diesel_fu...itive_test.pdf

 

No, not ethanol. It is specifically a soy based biodiesel mixed at 50:1 concentration. Ethanol is described in gasoline discussions as having the same failing as ULSD ... it is lacking in lubricatinq qualities. So, it is important to distinguish soy based biodiesel from ethanol.

Interestingly the article says:

Much the same as the stated purpose in adding TC-W3 in gasoline powered engines.

And on the same page:

The passage points out that blind faith in the equivalency of fuels from all sources is likely to be an unworkable policy in the real world.

The TC-W3 results in the diesel test show mid-range results of the additives that were found to have a positive result. Yet, it was used at a lower concentration of 200:1 in the diesel application as compared to the 50:1 concentration of soy based diesel. In a gasoline application the baseline concentration is 640:1.

While the soy based biodiesel is workable in a diesel application, it does not look promising in a gasoline application because of the 50:1 concentration. Running a 2 percent oil mix by volume sounds like a risky proposition with regard to the catalytic converters and O2 sensors.

BTW, it is interesting that the test result for Marvel Mystery Oil showed it made things worse in the diesel application. Yet, on bitog, there are often people who consider them in the same category as TC-W3. Given the choice between the two, the test ought to sway the choice towards TC-W3.

 

The benifits are with many sorts of bio diesel actually not specific to soy ones.

As said I have not put time in to searching the effects on a gasoline engine, but adding a substance which has lower power then the fuel it replaces isn't good for power either.

I hope you can get some measuralble results, would be interesting.

 

The reason that I was being very specific was simply to distinguish between ethanol and bio-diesel and because it is what is mentioned in the linked pdf. In fact, the use of TC-W3 is aimed at combatting the effects of ethanol, therefore adding more ethanol could be expected to exacerbate the problem.

I would advance the theory that the test results could be extrapolated into the realm of gasoline engines to some degree.

The test shows a statistically significant reduction in wear for TC-W3 using the defined defined standard method. However, the method has a defined test period of 90 minutes and the tests performed were at a defined concentration of additive which was different for each additive and the definition was controlled by the test sponsor.

Presuming that the test method is valid, a truly valid test suite ought to include the effect of varying the concentration. The sponsored tests do not do this.

Unless such a test is sponsored by some party for TC-W3, I expect that "measurable results" are off the table.

This is because the main goal is prevention. It is difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that something did not happen that would have happened save only for one factor. For example, if a fuel pump is still working ... is it still working only because of the addition of TC-W3? Or, would it have continued to work without TC-W3? The only externally measurable result that a layman can observe and report is the claimed MPG difference that ranges from a slight loss to a several mpg gain.

But, there are many anecdotal accounts of noisy fuel pumps becoming progressively quieter or even silent. There are similar accounts of reduced or eliminated fuel injector ticking as well as improved idle. These are results achieved using the same fuel on the same car with the only change being the addtion of TC-W3. Some of the reporters at bitog are even so compulsive that they pump the same fuel from the same station using a specific nozzle on every fill-up in order to reduce variables. They have no lab, but they are at least being careful in their observation methodology.