Rep Power: 331

nice first post. welcome to the forums.

 
Rep Power: 813

i dont know how you can say iridiums give you better mileage when it isn't possible. and if you think they're lasting 60k think again.

 
Rep Power: 362

you've been repped........

 
Rep Power: 337

they do give better mileage. ask anyone who uses them in a car that works

 
Rep Power: 364

haha. I gained 1mpg, MAYBE 2 mpg with both FP60 and LC20.

I'm not sure about Iridiums giving you better mpg since I've always used them ... but they give incredible throttle response ... at least in my experiences. I like them

 
Rep Power: 401

I can't totally agree with you on that. While LC products are superior, chevron techron does "do crap".

http://www.s2ki.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=171397

 
Rep Power: 401

uncalled for, AND incorrect. apparently you need to do some reading up yourself.

 
Rep Power: 401

lubecontrol's products are superior, and have been tested as such by well known and well educated 3rd parties.

 
Rep Power: 289

triple post!!!!!


Now who's making kitty scared, hmmm?

anyways, Fp60 is no joke. You won't be disappointed. I was using it in my wifes' '92 Corolla and it was getting ~23 mpg before. now it gets 26-26.5 consistently. and the idle is smoother. the only other thing it needs now is a few new gaskets and a damn motor mount and the idle will be completely calm.

 
Rep Power: 813

when i had iridiums, my mileage was the same as with stock plugs. and switching from iridium to copper showed no noticable performance difference (except better starting). as for lubecontrol, it works. after a month of using em my mileage went from 15-20 to 22-26, and highway from 34 to 42.

 
Rep Power: 320

I found I got better MPG using the iridiums, for about 10,000 miles, then the milage went back to normal, and frankly, there is no way I'm buying those things every 10k miles, so not worth it in my book.

 
Rep Power: 0

I can't beleive you guys say gas is gas, how does that not apply when Shell got sued for 400million+ when scientists (hired by the public) proved their gas rusted fuel lines and linings of fuel tanks (yes the plastic ones too). Motul has been making the same thing for years if that adds to the fire .

 
Rep Power: 337

you thought about the colder weather right?

you usually get less mileage in the winter than in the summer.

 
Rep Power: 0

I haven't touched my plugs yet (55k) or used any fuel enhancements. I just change the oil and filters, brakes, trans fluid, clean and drive. Owners manual says to wait until 100k for plugs. For those of you who replaced them, what was your motivation? Are you modified, so your recommended service schedule no longer applies? Did you do it just to try somthing new, hoping for increased performance or mileage?

I did notice that my gas mileage went down when I got my new BFGs + new front struts installed. I also had an alignment done promptly after (which I could feel instantly) but the mileage still stayed down. I'm guessing that the BFGs are simply heavier than the Firestones and take more energy to spin.. My car also seems to get better mileage in the summer, so I am waiting to see what happens when it warms up.

Still runs like a champ, just dosn't get as great of milage as it once did.

Between probably 20k and 45k or so (when I changed tires) I was getting mostly high mileage between fill ups. Commonly 340-360 and after the new tires & winter weather, I'm back down to seeing the low fuel light at around 330 flat. I guess it's not a gigantic difference, but it's plenty to notice. I'm not really bitching about my mileage, but I am curious what caused the drop.. I am guessing it's the increased rotating mass.

Hopefully when the weather gets warmer, mileage will go back up.. other then that, all I can do is try to find tire weights for the FR's and the BFGs and see if weight could be it.

Hopefully I'm not getting too far off topic.

 
Rep Power: 337

It could be that the BFG's are sticker than the Firestones. Lower rolling resistance tires will yield better mileage than sticker tires at the cost of increased braking distances.

 
Rep Power: 320

I change the plugs because my MPG dropped around 35-40k miles. I changed the plugs and it went right back up. Yes, I know in theory the plugs last 110k miles, but that's just marketing BS. I took my plugs out, my pag was signifgantly off and they where VERY carbon fouled. So IMO, the 110k miles plug thing is marketing BS and I would not reccomend following it. I mean honestly, is $25-$40 every 40k miles that much? And I can change plugs in less than 20 minutes, so I don't really see a reason not to change them. Yeah the car ran fine, but power was down and MPG where too.

Also, keep in mind that sticky tire cause more friction, which long story short means more gas. So while your handling may have went up, your MPG has suffered. You can get some extremely hard tire that will last a long time and get better MPG, but then your handling will suffer greatly, this can be bad in an emergency situation.

 
Rep Power: 320

This is relative and not really true. For instance, if you drive like you do in the summer, with no heater, you can get the same MPG, I do. Dam it's cold though, 21F on the way in this morning. Why would I do something crazy like that? Well in my truck, I can see a 2 MPG drop in the winter, and when you only get about 17-18 MPG in the summer, that just sucks to go down to 15-16 MPG. So, I found that running things like the rear window defroster, the heater, you also run the head lamps longer, and while all these are small, a bunch of small things add up to noticeable drop.

The thought that winter automatically means a drop in MPG is not true.

 
Rep Power: 813

i always thought that was true since the engine takes so much longer to warm up (especially starting at 0F). how does the heater use gas mpp? the blower fan being on?

 
Rep Power: 337

i didn't think the heater used any more parasitic drain on the motor cause it was just a fan. i guess when you turn it up all the way it can do something. idk, but i know when i run my AC in anyway my mpg drops in half!

 
Rep Power: 320

Yes, a little power is consumed by the blower, it's like 400 watts or something like that. Long story short, gas has about 10.5 kw-hour of energy in it (yes, I know the number is MUCH higher than that, but after you take into account the efficiency of the engine and alternator, this is what you end up with on average). Let say you run your car for an 1 a day, 30 minutes to work, 30 minutes back, I go to work 6 days a week. So in a year I spend about 312 hours just going back and forth to work, of which I'll say I have the heater on for 1/2 of that time, that's 156 hours. So that means I need 62,400 watt hours to heat my car (156 hours *400 watts). That's not bad, 6 gallons right? Well, I also need my radio, that's what around 400 watts with the head unit and speakers and I use that all year around, so that's 312*400=124,800 or 12 gallons. Then you have the rear defroster, which uses something like 1000 watts... well you get the point, are a bunch of little things that can add up, they may not make much difference, but I'm trying to prove a point that it can lower your MPG, and so far I've managed to do just that.

But the REAL killer, most of people run the defroster in the winter, which kicks your AC on, and I'm not going into how much that kills. This will drop your MPG by FAR more than anything I mentioned above.

 
Rep Power: 320

Well, the engine does indeed take long to come to normal operating temps, but manufactures have been striving in the last few years to cut "start up" emissions down because it effects the cars EPA rating (ULEV ect). So the result is that they have moved the cats around, and all the rest of the stuff. What I have seen is that you car is warm in say 20F in about 30 seconds, and in say 80F, it takes about 20-25 seconds. The initial start up where the RPMS climb is higher in the cold, so you are running more rich to heat up the cats quicker, but it quickly falls showing that the catalytic converters are heated and running fine, the combustion chambers are heated in even less time. The difference in fuel being used is minimal between the 2 temps. This was a big issue in the early-mid 90's.

 
Rep Power: 813

i agree with the defroster because it doesn't kick the ac on but it does make the belt turn. i can definately notice a power loss with just the defrost on so i try never to use that. a/c as soon as it breaks down i'm having it removed. nothing but a waste of space and resource. and when i need it it never gets cold enough to be useful.

 
Rep Power: 0

Lucas is not really that good at all. Anything beside lubecontrol producs r pretty much useless

 
Rep Power: 0

Thanks for the reply Jrfish. I will take that into consideration. I haven't noticed the car get any slower, but while driving it every day, tiny changes can be hard to notice.

A03

 
Rep Power: 364

I've been using LC and FP ... I've noticed maybe a 1-2 mpg gain.

lately though (the past month or so) I've noticed that much mpg has dropped 2-3 mpg! ... so now I'm around 23 mpg ... -_____-;;;

my driving habits haven't changed ... I've had the defroster on quite a bit, but I never turn the heater on ... but when my DF is on, the a/c isn't on (maybe it's because I don't have a/c lol).

oh well ... I guess I have my header leak and winter gas to blame ;(

 
Rep Power: 304

thanks for the info although i have had good luck with lucas and run it in both of my cars and it has made a difference in performance every time i put it in. but good lookin out! ill have to check out the lubecontrol

 
Rep Power: 364

Kyle is quite right ...

check out this read: http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/images/lucas/lucas.htm

 
Rep Power: 289

here is proof that bob is a believer:




in case anyone wants to blow that shot up and zoom on the top banner

 
Rep Power: 253

i normally put 93 in my car. Is that bad since are engine was designed for 87 should I be putting it in?

 
Rep Power: 813

yea its bad. your engine doesn't get hot enough to burn so you will have more carbon deposits.