Welcome to the North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club Saturday April 25, 2015
Home Forums WikiNASIOC Products Store Modifications Upgrade Garage
NASIOC
Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences Home Registration is free! Visit the NASIOC Store NASIOC Rules Search Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Calendar Archive NASIOC Upgrade Garage Logout
Go Back   NASIOC > NASIOC Subaru Models > Impreza Forum

Welcome to NASIOC - The world's largest online community for Subaru enthusiasts!
Welcome to the NASIOC.com Subaru forum.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, free of charge, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
View Poll Results: Any difference?
Improved fuel economy 4 26.67%
Smoother operation / reduced noise 6 40.00%
Reduced oil consumption 0 0%
No difference 5 33.33%
Will continue treating fuel 5 33.33%
Will not continue treating fuel 5 33.33%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 15. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-04-2013, 08:58 PM   #101
flyboy1100
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 314216
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ND
Vehicle:
2012 2.0i Sport 5MT
DGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G2Spfld View Post
91 noE yields better than 87 noE, as I'm seeing as well ( I only have 91noE), yet whatever the ethanol content your seeing the best with 2CO, good score! Not just need to perfect, or reduce the burden of adding 2CO. Maybe just a handy bottle and bottle holder for the hatch/trunk to ensure no leakage or spillage is all that's needed. I'd hate to be in a hurry and have a qt of that stuff spill in the back. I doubt the trunk liner would be adequate enough to contain it all
I'm sure it's 10%, it is state mandated now.

I quit experimenting with 91e0 because it really isn't worth the min 15% premium.

The stabil bottle is the ideal dispenser I think, but unless you need the stabil for something it is too expensive.

I still need to test e10 w/o tcw3 but I'm sure I won't like the results, my wife's mpg is the worst it has ever been now since all we ever ran in her car for the last 120k was 87e0
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
flyboy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2013, 11:40 PM   #102
awenthol
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 355024
Join Date: Apr 2013
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: NE Iowa
Vehicle:
2013 DGM STi Sedan

Default

I've been doing this with the truck ('06 Cummins) for years and years (quart per fill-up). This is the first I've heard of people doing it on a gasser.

Don't see how you guys are going to see any lube from such a lean ratio...going to have to do some more research....
awenthol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2013, 12:20 AM   #103
flyboy1100
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 314216
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ND
Vehicle:
2012 2.0i Sport 5MT
DGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by awenthol View Post
I've been doing this with the truck ('06 Cummins) for years and years (quart per fill-up). This is the first I've heard of people doing it on a gasser.

Don't see how you guys are going to see any lube from such a lean ratio...going to have to do some more research....
How many gallons on that fill? Still more concentrated then what we are doing I'm sure
flyboy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2013, 12:44 AM   #104
wizardslovak
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 353572
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: NY
Vehicle:
2013 Subaru Impreza
Grey

Default

Sounds good! Will try it with next fill up. I am getting 28mpg on Ny streets with 93
wizardslovak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2013, 01:52 AM   #105
G2Spfld
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 354284
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Midwest
Vehicle:
2013 Imp Sport CVT
SWP

Default

The diesels require lube for both primary and secondary injector pumps, as well as injectors. They run a very high fuel pressure, and injector pressure. So, by nature they need the lube whereas a combustion engine can get by without the extra lubrication properties. With these newer higher compression smaller engines, especially other manufacturers using direct port injection, can see carbon buildup. The 2CO helps to remove that and the lubrication properties do help the injectors and fuel pump. I've noticed quieter injectors as a result. I havnt been comparing my mpg as much, as others on here are far more consistent recording and monitoring that than I, but I have noticed a smoother idle as well as maybe a little crispier throttle response. These engines having much lower pump and injector pressures do not require the ratio of mixture as a Diesel engine would. I always hated adding the power service to my truck in the cold months. It was always a messy pain, on top of the normal messy pumps you get with diesel fuel. That's why I'm interested in a clean easy way to consistently add 2CO if I choose to use it long term. If I'm running it in my fleet, it could be a meaningful catalyst to allow the use of cheaper priced blends while protecting from the harmful affects of ethanol. I can only imagine having the guys in a hurry, spilling it, getting uniforms stained, smelling like oil, or having the container open inside the car as a result if carelessness.

But to refer back to your questions, the gas engines do not require the mixture of a diesel to lubricate pumps and injectors.
G2Spfld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2013, 02:00 PM   #106
awenthol
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 355024
Join Date: Apr 2013
Chapter/Region: MWSOC
Location: NE Iowa
Vehicle:
2013 DGM STi Sedan

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyboy1100 View Post

How many gallons on that fill? Still more concentrated then what we are doing I'm sure
As G25pfid mentioned, diesels need a lot more and the fact that diesel is basically oil means there is no concern with running too much. Some guys did an experiment (dyno) years ago with various amounts of 2cycle and found a threshold in which power output falls off drastically (3+ quarts to a tank, but I don't remember exactly).

To answer your question, usually 1 quart to a 30 gallon fill and in case of "short fills" I'd run without for a tank, every so often.

Forgot to mention-the EPA took away all of our lubrication when they went to ULSD so the added lube is a must for an engine designed prior to the switch....
awenthol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2013, 02:11 PM   #107
G2Spfld
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 354284
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Midwest
Vehicle:
2013 Imp Sport CVT
SWP

Default

Kind of reminds me back when they did away with regular leaded fuel. There is always a period where you need an additive.
G2Spfld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2013, 03:03 PM   #108
flyboy1100
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 314216
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ND
Vehicle:
2012 2.0i Sport 5MT
DGM

Default

No amount of tc-w3 will help this situation though, 35-40mph headwind @ 82mph (speedo reads 2% low)

Ouch, this tank will be rough, but I guess slightly better than w/o it

flyboy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2013, 07:20 PM   #109
flyboy1100
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 314216
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ND
Vehicle:
2012 2.0i Sport 5MT
DGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyboy1100 View Post
No amount of tc-w3 will help this situation though, 35-40mph headwind @ 82mph (speedo reads 2% low)

Ouch, this tank will be rough, but I guess slightly better than w/o it
I'm wondering if I got bad gas/winter blend. On my way home (now) even with a 10mph tailwind(grr, why can't it be the same wind) I am struggling to break 38mpg@ 60mph. Normally it would be like 41mpg
flyboy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2013, 08:20 PM   #110
G2Spfld
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 354284
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Midwest
Vehicle:
2013 Imp Sport CVT
SWP

Default

Bad gas is my excuse for only getting 30.3 mpg coming back across the Kansas autobahn. It was all hwy, where is my 36 mpg? ;-)
G2Spfld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 02:45 PM   #111
jr0bb5
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 315353
Join Date: Apr 2012
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: MA
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza Sp Prem
5MT OBP/DGM

Default

I just noticed wavear15 voted for both Smoother operation / ruduced noise and No difference.
jr0bb5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 02:54 PM   #112
Commander Keen
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 319157
Join Date: May 2012
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza 4DR 5MT

Default

One of those "No difference" votes was cast before running three tanks was even remotely possible.
Commander Keen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 03:31 PM   #113
wavear15
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 316907
Join Date: Apr 2012
Chapter/Region: Tri-State
Location: Long Island, NY
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza
Ice Silver Metallic

Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by jr0bb5 View Post
I just noticed wavear15 voted for both Smoother operation / ruduced noise and No difference.
Thanks for pointing that out. I'm going to blame sketchy cellular service for my error while voting but I meant to vote for "will continue to use" as that's what I've been doing since...
wavear15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 03:35 PM   #114
GC8Coop
Scooby Newbie
 
Member#: 369812
Join Date: Oct 2013
Default

How much should I use upon fill up
GC8Coop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 03:43 PM   #115
Angelus911
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 89967
Join Date: Jun 2005
Chapter/Region: NESIC
Location: MA
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza Sport
DGM

Default

1 oz per 5 gallons of gas is whats suggested, I believe
Angelus911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 10:37 PM   #116
flyboy1100
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 314216
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ND
Vehicle:
2012 2.0i Sport 5MT
DGM

Default

Update on the wife's car, she had quit using tcw3 for a few tanks, immediately after starting use again she is back up to where she was pre e10 only fuel.

I kinda wonder what exactly is in stabil "ethanol treatment", it is blue in color....
flyboy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 11:28 PM   #117
ans2k
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 315631
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Bryant, AR
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza Sport

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyboy1100 View Post
Update on the wife's car, she had quit using tcw3 for a few tanks, immediately after starting use again she is back up to where she was pre e10 only fuel.
What? So are you saying that when she quite there was a negative effect and when started using it again, she had positive effects?
ans2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 11:31 PM   #118
ans2k
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 315631
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Bryant, AR
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza Sport

Default

I am on my third tank of this stuff. The first two tanks had 1 oz to 4 gallon ratio of this stuff to be sure to lube the whole fuel system. I am currently using 1oz:5gal now. The engine is slightly smoother and the mpg is pending on this tank. I am wondering about the oil consumption. Before treatment, I was at 1 quart per 5000 miles. We shall see how this goes.
ans2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2013, 11:42 PM   #119
G2Spfld
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 354284
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Midwest
Vehicle:
2013 Imp Sport CVT
SWP

Default

Depending on your OD reading, I'd bet it'll improve if for no other reason but freeing up ring packs. Carbon wreaks havoc on them.
G2Spfld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 06:35 AM   #120
flyboy1100
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 314216
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ND
Vehicle:
2012 2.0i Sport 5MT
DGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ans2k View Post

What? So are you saying that when she quite there was a negative effect and when started using it again, she had positive effects?
Yes. For us it appears to negate the effects of ethanol (10% mpg loss). I don't care if they say ethanol is only a 3% difference, I have 3 cars and a motorcycle with a combined 300k+ miles worth of data that suggests otherwise. Ethanol is just a filler and has zero benefit, I loath the stuff
flyboy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 09:41 AM   #121
Commander Keen
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 319157
Join Date: May 2012
Chapter/Region: MAIC
Vehicle:
2012 Impreza 4DR 5MT

Default

There's a 3% difference in the AFR ratio, but I agree that the overall MPG hit is worse.

If the octane of ethanol is 99, I have to wonder about the octane of the gasoline used in 87E10. Maybe ethanol is popular among fuel suppliers because it allows them to move sub-par gasoline.

Then considering that ethanol can
of the mixture, it's possible the engine could be exposed to octane below 87. At that point, ignition would retard and MPGs would nosedive.

This tank is about to finish at 40+ MPG. It's nice to fill up so rarely, but it makes gathering data slow.
Commander Keen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 10:40 AM   #122
flyboy1100
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 314216
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ND
Vehicle:
2012 2.0i Sport 5MT
DGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander Keen View Post
There's a 3% difference in the AFR ratio, but I agree that the overall MPG hit is worse.

If the octane of ethanol is 99, I have to wonder about the octane of the gasoline used in 87E10. Maybe ethanol is popular among fuel suppliers because it allows them to move sub-par gasoline.

Then considering that ethanol can Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kRn4RN9Fl8 of the mixture, it's possible the engine could be exposed to octane below 87. At that point, ignition would retard and MPGs would nosedive.

This tank is about to finish at 40+ MPG. It's nice to fill up so rarely, but it makes gathering data slow.
Probably 77-78 octane range.
flyboy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 11:55 AM   #123
G2Spfld
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 354284
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Midwest
Vehicle:
2013 Imp Sport CVT
SWP

Default

That's the issue with ethanol. We had a race engine built to run on e85, as there can be benefits from that, big one being $$$$$$$$ cause race fuel is expensive. We had a tuner not extremely familiar with e85 tuning, and used his old practices of timing vs detonation. Since e85 doesn't really detonate he ran timing up too far and lifted the head with L19 ARP's. That alone did me in with ethanol anything. That said, I do run a tank occasionally thru my Tahoe (e85 equipped obviously). But the mpg will drop from 18 to 12-13 mpg when I do. I find it "ironic" that the gov spec'd high mpg requirements for vehicles, then subsidized ethanol and required it blended into fuel. Kinda like when they "encouraged" hybrids and EV's then came back and taxed people who bought them since they weren't paying the fuel tax and gov lost money. Isn't that kind of like throwing someone in a hole a rope, then cutting it before they claimed all the way up it? I'm just saying......
G2Spfld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 12:37 PM   #124
flyboy1100
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 314216
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: ND
Vehicle:
2012 2.0i Sport 5MT
DGM

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by G2Spfld View Post
That's the issue with ethanol. We had a race engine built to run on e85, as there can be benefits from that, big one being $$$$$$$$ cause race fuel is expensive. We had a tuner not extremely familiar with e85 tuning, and used his old practices of timing vs detonation. Since e85 doesn't really detonate he ran timing up too far and lifted the head with L19 ARP's. That alone did me in with ethanol anything. That said, I do run a tank occasionally thru my Tahoe (e85 equipped obviously). But the mpg will drop from 18 to 12-13 mpg when I do. I find it "ironic" that the gov spec'd high mpg requirements for vehicles, then subsidized ethanol and required it blended into fuel. Kinda like when they "encouraged" hybrids and EV's then came back and taxed people who bought them since they weren't paying the fuel tax and gov lost money. Isn't that kind of like throwing someone in a hole a rope, then cutting it before they claimed all the way up it? I'm just saying......
Like I said, I see zero plusses to ethanol, we pay for it in tax subsidies, we pay for it in fuel tax, it takes energy to produce, price of food went up because the only way farmers will grow it is if it pays more than the normal corn price, and in the end we pay more at the pump because of reduced mpg.

There is a billboard near me that says "pay less at the pump, use ethanol". I want to rent the next billboard 1/2 mile down the road and have it say "fill more often, use ethanol"
flyboy1100 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2013, 12:52 PM   #125
G2Spfld
Scooby Specialist
 
Member#: 354284
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Midwest
Vehicle:
2013 Imp Sport CVT
SWP

Default

I'd almost split the cost of that board with you just to see it.
G2Spfld is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Powered by Searchlight © 2015 Axivo Inc.
Copyright ©1999 - 2014, North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club, Inc.