Problems with Techron and related engine cleaning fluids
Kevin P. Murphy
Has anybody had any bad experiences with Techron or other similar
fluids for cleaning fuel injection systems?
I added a bottle of Chevron's "Cleanup" to my gas tank when my car was
losing power, and since it seemed to help, I added another bottle on
my next refueling. Now it seems that it might have caused my fuel
strainer ("sock") to become rigid and impermeable, causing damage to
my fuel pump due to lack of pressure. (Early symptoms of this, BTW,
are loss of power, reduced fuel efficiency and difficulty starting --
the very reasons I used Techron in the first place -- suggesting another
cause. Cheap gas in Texas, maybe?)
I have a 1990 Mazda Protege.
Kevin
Alan Barrow
>Has anybody had any bad experiences with Techron or other similar
>fluids for cleaning fuel injection systems?
Yes, for cars, as well as outboards.
>I added a bottle of Chevron's "Cleanup" to my gas tank when my car was
>losing power, and since it seemed to help, I added another bottle on
>my next refueling.
It usually does help clean up the system. (Though whether your car
needed this, most people cannot say.) I have observed several cases
where it has cleaned up the fuel system on non-fuel injected vehicles.
In addition, both Yamaha and Mercury resell it to deal with the
traditional 2 stroke problems of carbon buildup. The modern gasses have
many additives for emissions purposes that cause this problem in 2
strokes. Techron is the only additive that will visibly reduce the build
up that they have found. In addition, they have found it is great at
dealing with varnish, gum, and other sludge that occurs in infrequently
used 2 strokes. (Often made worse by water in the system from
consendation) The factory reps use very concentrated Techron to deal
with problem motors at fishing tournaments. It works! (Usually to ungum
the carb)
>Now it seems that it might have caused my fuel
>strainer ("sock") to become rigid and impermeable, causing damage to
>my fuel pump due to lack of pressure.
I find this hard to believe. Both Chevron and Texaco use Techron in pump
gas. (And have for years)
Sounds like a bad strainer design. This stuff is safe for use with
diaphram (rubber) fuel pumps, etc. If it causes fuel filter problems,
then the filter is faulty. Who exactly is telling you the additive
caused the problem?
>(Early symptoms of this, BTW,
>are loss of power, reduced fuel efficiency and difficulty starting --
>the very reasons I used Techron in the first place -- suggesting another
>cause. Cheap gas in Texas, maybe?)
I think you had problems before you used Techron.
Good Luck!
Alan Barrow km4ba | If a little knowledge.....
Work: j...@atl.hp.com | is a dangerous thing.....
Home: al...@km4ba.ampr.org | then what is the Anti-Dote???
Allen Middleton
>
>
>Has anybody had any bad experiences with Techron or other similar
>fluids for cleaning fuel injection systems?
>
I've used Techron in my '85 Omni GLH Turbo since '86, a couple times
a year, without ill effect. The fuel pump just died, but not unexpected
for a car with 149K miles.
-Allen Middleton
Mike Pomeroy
: -Allen Middleton
fwiw:
I had an 86 Thunderbird with the fuel injected v-8 engine that
developed rough idling and failed to accelerate smoothly. This
happened under warranty. Since everything was within specs (I do my
own work), when I took the bird in for an unrelated recall I asked the
dealer to look into these problems while they had the car. The dealer
refused until I ran a tank of gas with Techron through the motor.
This dealer requested I use specifically Techron, not any other
injector/motor cleaner.
Guess what ..... that did it! Fixed!! And I had no further problems
of a similar nature until I sold the car with about 100,000 miles on
the speedometer.
Mike Pomeroy
mi...@freenet.scri.fsu.edu
Dick Brewster
I've used Techron about once a year for 3 years in my 83 Toyota Camry
with 182,000 miles. The engine starts to idle rough and about 150 rpm
slow about every year. One tank of gas and a bottle of Techron restores
the idle to normal in a couple hundred miles.
I'm very skeptical of snake oils, but this stuff seems to work.
Does anyone know whats in it? The smell is familier but I can't place it.
--
Dick Brewster dbre...@netcom.com
Kumaravel Natarajan
From what I remember reading on the bottle, the active/main ingredient was
naptha. Also known as either "white gas" or "Coleman stove fuel".
--
Vel
David Zatz
*I'm very skeptical of snake oils, but this stuff seems to work.
*Does anyone know whats in it? The smell is familier but I can't place it.
I don't know what's in it, but I was told it's basically what CHrysler
sells its dealers to relieve fuel crap build-up. It worked for me, too,
in my first car, after two years of cheapo gas. (I try to use Hess
regular because it's detergent, but there aren't any dealers nearby).
Dave Easton
now. Never any problems, esp. with the injectors, which is the whole idea.
What were you getting at? I've never heard anything bad about Techron,
and I'll admit no love for Standard and their years of dishonest
advertising. Dave in Tucson
Jerald Barker
There have been so many positive results posted here about Techron that
I'm gonna try it myself! Sure beats $50-100 have the injection system
cleaned...
Just so happens that my Dakota started running rough and hesitating
during acceleration lately, so using NetAdvice I added a bottle of a
Techron-containing product last night. Will know soon if it works
for me, too....
David J Heisterberg
<bhmd...@altair.selu.edu> wrote:
> Be careful using products with Xylene in them. That stuff is one of the
>most carcinogenic chemicals you can find. Labs used to use it to clean slides
Maybe you're thinking of benzene? Xylene is more comparable to toluene
in toxicity -- it's certainly less chronically toxic than benzene.
>cancer all over. DONT TOUCH IT and DONT BREATHE IT. There are some other
It used to be common practice to use benzene to get some chemicals off
one's hands! Noone (I hope) does that anymore, but I've gotten more
benzene, toluene, etc. on me than you'll ever run into using this stuff
for occasional cleaning. And I'm not particularly worried. Just use it
with care, dispose of it properly, and we'll all be safe.
--
David J. Heisterberg I am trying to do two things, viz.
Department of Chemistry be a radical and not be a fool.
The Ohio State University -- James A. Garfield
Guy Richard Spivack
you can buy it mail order. There is an add in the center "classifieds"
of Autoweek every week.
Summary of ad:
for 1-5 20oz. bottles: $5.99 each, discounts for larger orders, from
"Imparts, ltd.", phone (800) 325-9043. Free shipping on orders > $45.
They are in St. Louis, MO.
disclaimer: I have no connection with this company, nor have
I ever bought from them, I just see the ad all the time, and
am passing along the information.
I use Chevron "Clean-Up" with Techron all the time, I have never used
the straight "Techron" product. Any ideas on why this would be better
to use? I imagine it is more concentrated. I have been impressed with
the benefits from using "Clean-Up".
-Guy
spi...@hal.com
Maggie Trevor
Don't use it. In any quantities. It's not worth the risk unless you
have the proper equipment to vent the fumes. Yes, it used to be common
practice to use this stuff in all sorts of applications, but the reason
why it ISN'T any more is because of the high association of this stuff
to cancer, particularly lung cancer. I'm tempted to say, don't trust
this guy because he's a chemist. I used to be one, and used to work
across the hall from a hazardous materials lab. Chemists use this stuff
every day, and they tend to get lazy with safety precautions. They
also die of cancer at higher rates than people in other professions.
Exposure to benzene doesn't automatically mean that you'll get cancer,
just as being a smoker or inhaling asbestos doesn't automatically doom
you. It increases your risk of disease. And it isn't worth it. Find
another solvent.
bhmd...@altair.selu.edu
> In article <CwGpB...@austin.ibm.com> si...@bond.bocaraton.ibm.com (Sivasankar Chander) writes:
>>Dick Brewster (dbre...@netcom.com) wrote:
>>
>> I think most of the ingredients are listed on the bottle. Xylene was one,
>>I remember. Here I'm talking about Pro-gard engine deposit cleaner. BTW, is
>>Techron available separately as *Techron*, and if so, where is it available?
>
>
> Xylene is listed as an ingredient, but the Techron bottle also lists
> an ingredient that is covered under some trade-secret coding scheme which
> I presume is what makes Techron, Techron.
>
> -davin
>
Be careful using products with Xylene in them. That stuff is one of the
most carcinogenic chemicals you can find. Labs used to use it to clean slides
for re-use and stuff like that but stopped when people started popping up with
cancer all over. DONT TOUCH IT and DONT BREATHE IT. There are some other
products like carb spray cleaners that use it. These are really dangerous
since contact with the skin and lungs is more likely than with a bottle you
pour in your fuel tank.
The upside is, that shit will clean almost any buildup of varnish from your
fuel system. I once had a car with a bosch k-jetronic mechanical fuel system.
The injectors had terrible spray patterns and very uneven flow rates which
caused performance and behavior to stink. I tried some cheapo fuel system
cleaner that did a little but not much. My dad and I popped out the injectors,
let them hang in jars, turned on the key and jumpered the fuel pump circuit,
and presses down on the air flow metering plate. Fuel was then constantly
squirting out of the injectors (crappily I might add). My dad had brought a
quart of xylene with him which we added to the about 2 gals of gas in the tank.
He got the stuff from the chemistry dept at the University where he works. We
let the stuff go on through (all fuel in the tank) and by the time it was done,
the injectors were spraying so much better I couldn't believe it.
My point: Xylene is a great fuel system and parts cleaner, but if you touch
the stuff, you are asking for trouble.
Brian Acosta
b...@selu.edu
David J Heisterberg
Maggie Trevor <tr...@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
>you. It increases your risk of disease. And it isn't worth it. Find
>another solvent.
Sure, if there's another solvent that will do the job and doesn't
have the drawbacks of xylene, use it. But anyone who's worried
about a one-time exposure to xylene shouldn't be having anything
to do with a goddamn automobile in the first place. Cars are a
hell of a lot more dangerous than the chemical boogeypersons we
all live in fear of nowadays. Maybe I should apply for membership
in the John deArmond fan club.
Maggie Trevor
Of course there are plenty of people who over-react to every possible
risk. But there are a few chemicals for which there is overwhelming
evidence of danger, and benzene is definitely near the top of the list.
Yes, working near cars has it's dangers, but there are a few things that
you can do to minimize it without becoming paranoid. Nobody reading this
newsgroup would even consider working under a car that wasn't supported
by jackstands. Nobody would think of painting their cars with urethane
paints in a poorly ventilated area and without wearing proper breathing
equipment. Most people would at least wear a dust mask when working around
brake pads/shoes that might contain asbestos. Benzene falls into the
same category. It might not hurt you now, just like the asbestos, but
it could have bad consequences down the line.
Chemists still use benzene because it has unique properties as
a solvent that you just can't get from anything else. There are plenty
of chemicals for your car that would do the same thing, though. The
benefit isn't worth the risk. And it isn't just being afraid of the
chemical boogeyman, it is just common sense.
Josh Niclas
How can one get away from xylene considering it is used in gasoline as an
octane booster.
I have no problem with it. Just be careful with it.
d
David J Heisterberg
Josh Niclas <nic...@socrates.ucsf.edu> wrote:
>How can one get away from xylene considering it is used in gasoline as an
>octane booster.
I mentioned benzene, and Ms. Trevor keyed in on that rather than
xylene. Benzene is used as infrequently as possible now because
it just doesn't have any advantages to outweigh the risks.
--
David J. Heisterberg I am trying to do two things, viz.
Department of Chemistry be a radical and not be a fool.
The Ohio State University -- James A. Garfield
nickerr
: -Allen Middleton
How do "snake oils", like Techron and Slick 50, affect cars with turbos?
Since the turbo's bearings sit in the engine oil, will it cause any
undesirable affects on those bearings?
David W. Hwang
: The upside is, that shit will clean almost any buildup of varnish from your
: fuel system. I once had a car with a bosch k-jetronic mechanical fuel system.
: The injectors had terrible spray patterns and very uneven flow rates which
: caused performance and behavior to stink. I tried some cheapo fuel system
: cleaner that did a little but not much. My dad and I popped out the injectors,
: let them hang in jars, turned on the key and jumpered the fuel pump circuit,
: and presses down on the air flow metering plate. Fuel was then constantly
: squirting out of the injectors (crappily I might add). My dad had brought a
: quart of xylene with him which we added to the about 2 gals of gas in the tank.
: He got the stuff from the chemistry dept at the University where he works. We
: let the stuff go on through (all fuel in the tank) and by the time it was done,
: the injectors were spraying so much better I couldn't believe it.
: My point: Xylene is a great fuel system and parts cleaner, but if you touch
: the stuff, you are asking for trouble.
: Brian Acosta
: b...@selu.edu
Besides the carcinogenesis, are there any other downsides to this stuff,
especially with respect to harming the fuel system or other parts of the
engine?
David
--
David W. Hwang, M.D. Better Living Through Polypharmacy
da...@ganglion.anes.med.umich.edu
da...@ganglion.ann-arbor.mi.us University of Michigan/Anesthesiology
David Zatz
*How do "snake oils", like Techron and Slick 50, affect cars with turbos?
*Since the turbo's bearings sit in the engine oil, will it cause any
*undesirable affects on those bearings?
Slick 50 - snake oil
Techron - detergent for fuel lines & injectors
pschikor
>How do "snake oils", like Techron and Slick 50, affect cars with turbos?
>Since the turbo's bearings sit in the engine oil, will it cause any
>undesirable affects on those bearings?
>
Slick 50? Depends on who you talk to, but most folks in a recent thread
here were against it in general, so they'd probably say hell no to a
turbo. Techron is a gasoline additive, so I don't see any effect with it.
FWIW, I have an '87 Dodge Turbo. I've done nothing special except
REGULAR oil changes with major brand oils (mostly Castrol) and it still runs
great.
--
Paul F. Schikora psch...@indiana.edu
Just a Student CIS: 72341,345
Indiana University 24 hr (msg): 812-876-4474
Christopher Lawson
.>
.>Besides the carcinogenesis, are there any other downsides to this stuff,
.>especially with respect to harming the fuel system or other parts of the
.>engine?
Yes, I agree that xylene is a fantastic solvent and probably
would strip out any varnishing. However, be warned.
Xylene can damage most rubbers and melt alot of plastics.
It can also dissolved any sealing compounds used in the
system.
The injectors will probably be fine for the short exposure time as they
are generally made of remarkably resistent plastics and stainless steel.
The rubber o-rings and fuel line would be in jeopardy. Incidentally,
if the fuel line and o-rings disintegrate, guess where all the black, gooy
residue ends up (usually clogging the fuel filter or injector).
I would also caution anyone thinking of just dumping some in the tank
and running it through the engine. Xylene is some nasty stuff before
you burn it and is even worse if you burn it (rather toxic by-products,
if I recall correctly). Probably not very kind to the cat converter
or to the O2 sensor if you have one.
Also, if you really do want to buy this stuff, the product called
"Goof-Off" is basically straight Xylene. For what it is though, its
expensive.
-Chris
law...@oasys.dt.navy.mil
Matt Lundberg
>
>How do "snake oils", like Techron and Slick 50, affect cars with turbos?
>Since the turbo's bearings sit in the engine oil, will it cause any
>undesirable affects on those bearings?
>
> nic...@netcom.com
I don't think Techron (sic) affects the turbo much, as you put this
stuff in the gas. I wouldn't put Slick 50 or DuraLube or whatever
into the oil of a turbo engine. Those bearings are much too expensive.
--
Matthew Lundberg m...@math.wustl.edu
Washington University,
Dept. of Mathematics "You'll PAY to know what you REALLY think"
St. Louis, MO 63130 Dobbs, 1961
Daniel Joshua Stern
a hydrocarbon just like pentane, octane, heptane, benzene, toluene, etc.
and all of these (And xylene) are found in various gasoline blends.
Also, xylene cleans-up your system very well.
SL6 Dan
On 1 Oct 1994, FRED W. BACH wrote:
> In article <36c78b...@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, law...@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Christopher Lawson) writes...
>
> [ snip ]
>
> #
> #I would also caution anyone thinking of just dumping some in the tank
> #and running it through the engine. Xylene is some nasty stuff before
> #you burn it and is even worse if you burn it (rather toxic by-products,
> #if I recall correctly). Probably not very kind to the cat converter
> #or to the O2 sensor if you have one.
>
> I doubt it. Xylene is already found in some gasoline mixtures, if I am
> not mistaken. If it is properly burned, you should get just H2O and CO2.
> Even unburned, I don't believe that it will hurt the O2 sensor. Isn't that
> a ceramic product? Maybe someone will correct me if I am wrong.
>
> #-Chris
> #law...@oasys.dt.navy.mil
> #
>
> Fred W. Bach , Operations Group | Internet: mu...@erich.triumf.ca
> TRIUMF (TRI-University Meson Facility) | Voice: 604-222-1047 loc 327/333
> 4004 WESBROOK MALL, UBC CAMPUS | FAX: 604-222-1074
> University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., CANADA V6T 2A3
> Damien says " If you don't STAND for SOMETHING, you'll FALL for ANYTHING "
> These are my opinions, which should ONLY make you read, think, and question.
> They do NOT necessarily reflect the views of my employer or fellow workers.
>
>
FRED W. BACH
Bruce Hamilton
>Xylene will not damage catalysts and will not hurt oxygen sensors. It is
>a hydrocarbon just like pentane, octane, heptane, benzene, toluene, etc.
>and all of these (And xylene) are found in various gasoline blends.
>Also, xylene cleans-up your system very well.
>SL6 Dan
Sometimes too well, xylene is a higher boiling aromatic and as such will
dissolve in elastomers and cause them to swell. There really is little
point in adding more aromatics to the gasoline - the Clean Air Act
reduced aromatics from about 30-35% to 25% maximum, and so there is
already plenty in gasoline. It is useful (undiluted) for dissolving gums
and some fuel system deposits during cleaning and tar spots on paint.
As there is about 25% of aromatics ( mainly toluene, ethyl benzene,
ortho/meta/para xylenes) in the gasoline, you would have to add large
amounts to obtain a significant cleaning effect, and consequently
move into the adverse effect on elastomers/combustion levels.
>On 1 Oct 1994, FRED W. BACH wrote:
>> In article <36c78b...@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, law...@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Christopher Lawson) writes...
...
>> #I would also caution anyone thinking of just dumping some in the tank
>> #and running it through the engine. Xylene is some nasty stuff before
>> #you burn it and is even worse if you burn it (rather toxic by-products,
>> #if I recall correctly). Probably not very kind to the cat converter
>> #or to the O2 sensor if you have one.
>>
>> I doubt it. Xylene is already found in some gasoline mixtures, if I am
>> not mistaken. If it is properly burned, you should get just H2O and CO2.
>> Even unburned, I don't believe that it will hurt the O2 sensor. Isn't that
>> a ceramic product? Maybe someone will correct me if I am wrong.
The original poster is correct - the higher aromatics do burn to release
benzene, a confirmed human carcinogen. Although the Clean Air Act
was intended to reduce aromatics for smog reasons ( aromatics and
olefins in exhaust emissions are major contributers to ozone formation )
the reduction in benzene emissions is another major health plus.
The aromatics and olefins are a very convenient source of octane,
but their adverse environmental effects means they are on the
way down. If you're really interested in the emissions, and the contributions
from various gasoline components, check out the papers by Kaiser, Siegl,
Anderson et al from Ford. Effect of Fuel Structure on Emissions from a
Spark-Ignited Engine. Parts 1-3 . Enviromental Science and Technology
v25n12 p2005-2012(1991), v26n8p1672(1992), v26n8p1581-1586(1992),
v27n7p1440-1447(1993). Or try Speciated Measurements and Calculated
Reactivities of Vehicle Exhaust Emissions from Conventional and
Reformulated Gasolines by S.Kent Hoekman. ES&Tv26n6p1206-1216(1992).
The oxygen sensor and catalyst are unlikely to be harmed unless
huge amounts of xylene are added, and then the sensor may be
affected by carbon soot.
Bruce Hamilton
Calvin Cheng
a rim meant for 195/55R15 tires. The car is question is an Acura Integra '94/95.
Even if the tire fits well, would I have problems with the ABS, or even
different speedometer/odometer readings (assuming I change all 4 tires)?
Also, do I get better traction this way?
Thanks
Bill Rees
(Calvin Cheng) wrote:
Calculate the tire height. You do this with the following formula:
(width in mm) * aspect ratio = sidewall height / 10 / 2.54 = sidewall
height (in)
195 * .55 = 107.25 / 10 / 2.54 = 4.22 inches
now the tire height is approximately 4.22 * 2 + 15 = 23.44 in
a 205/50R15 would have a height of 23.07 in
The 205/55R15 might work but the speedo would be off by a bit. I doubt if
you would
notice much in the way of better traction with such a slight difference in
tire width. For better traction, go with a better brand or softer rubber
compound. If you are running stock tires, chances are these tires were
picked for a combination of traction and tire life. In my experience,
most of the stock tires equipped with performance tires are less than
optimal.
Christopher Lawson
.
. [ snip ]
. [more snipping]
.
. I doubt it. Xylene is already found in some gasoline mixtures, if I am
. not mistaken. If it is properly burned, you should get just H2O and CO2.
. Even unburned, I don't believe that it will hurt the O2 sensor. Isn't that
. a ceramic product? Maybe someone will correct me if I am wrong.
.
I checked and you're right about xylene being found in rather small
concentrations in gasoline (.001 to .050 percentage) as a result
of the normal petroleum refining.
Xylene is larger concentrations does attack alot of rubbers and plastics.
Try dropping a rubber bushing or something in xylene for awhile.
Yes, in an ideal burning with just oxygen, any hydrocarbon fuel should
yield H2O and CO2. Unfortunately in a real engine, the air supply is
largely nitrogen with oxygen and a few other stray gases.
A good example of toxic by-products is the burning of methanol in an engine.
The main by-products are indeed H2O (as steam) and CO2. But you also get a
large quantity of formaldehyde and other aldehydes. These are not friendly
gases. BTW the typical by-products of methanol burning are more easily
controlled with an appropriately designed cat converter than the typical
gasoline by-products.
As for the O2 sensor, the problem usually is not a direct attacking of the
ceramic metal substance (can't recall the elements). The problem arises
when something permeates the ceramic and either directly interferes with
the battery effect or prevents the oxygen from affecting the battery
effect. This is the reason that you're supposed to avoid leaded fuel
with O2 sensors. The lead by-products tend to 'soak' into the ceramic-
metal composite and cause it to not change its voltage potential in the
presence of oxygen. (The voltage change is very small).
I am still open to the expertise of a chemist with experience in
combustion engines.
-Chris
Thomas D. Halter
A 215/50R15, OTOH, has a height of 24.31, within .05" of the stock
195/55R15 tires. I don't know if these will fit on the 6" stock rims
though, or if they will clear the inside fenders.
Tom
--
Consciousness: that annoying time between naps.
'94 Acura Integra GS-R '87 Honda CBR600F Hurricane DoD#1365
Bruce Hamilton
>In rec.autos.tech, mu...@reg.triumf.ca (FRED W. BACH) writes:
>.
>. [ snip ]
>. [more snipping]
>. I doubt it. Xylene is already found in some gasoline mixtures, if I am
>. not mistaken.
>I checked and you're right about xylene being found in rather small
>concentrations in gasoline (.001 to .050 percentage) as a result
>of the normal petroleum refining.
Most gasolines I analyse have a few % of the xylenes ( ortho, meta and
para ) so I'd suspect your numbers should be 0.1-5%.
...
>A good example of toxic by-products is the burning of methanol in an engine.
>The main by-products are indeed H2O (as steam) and CO2. But you also get a
>large quantity of formaldehyde and other aldehydes. These are not friendly
>gases. BTW the typical by-products of methanol burning are more easily
>controlled with an appropriately designed cat converter than the typical
>gasoline by-products.
Not always. While methanol produce far fewer species in the exhaust,
the soup from hydrocarbon fuels sometimes results in fewer simple toxic
products because they react in the exhaust. The toxics from methanol
are just as hard to control. Remember that in the US the "methanol"
fuel is actually 15% HCs ( for ease of starting, safety etc ), so you have
some of each. The problem with methanol remains the cold start
emissions ( as it is with HC fuels ), which can have 5-10X the amount
of formaldehyde than cold start HC fuels. That's why so many people
are working on cold start options ( from traps to fast light-up cats ).
Until the lean-burn cat ( as Mazda has ) is available both methanol
and HC fuels have emissions problems, and even then the cold-start
and evaporative emissions ( new gasolines will have lower volatility )
issues will have to be addressed.
Bruce Hamilton
Greg Marciniak
|> In article <36c78b...@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, law...@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Christopher Lawson) writes...
|>
|> [ snip ]
|>
|> #
|> #I would also caution anyone thinking of just dumping some in the tank
|> #and running it through the engine. Xylene is some nasty stuff before
|> #you burn it and is even worse if you burn it (rather toxic by-products,
|> #if I recall correctly). Probably not very kind to the cat converter
|> #or to the O2 sensor if you have one.
|>
|> I doubt it. Xylene is already found in some gasoline mixtures, if I am
|> not mistaken. If it is properly burned, you should get just H2O and CO2.
|> Even unburned, I don't believe that it will hurt the O2 sensor. Isn't that
|> a ceramic product? Maybe someone will correct me if I am wrong.
|>
|> #-Chris
|> #law...@oasys.dt.navy.mil
|> #
|>
|> Fred W. Bach , Operations Group | Internet: mu...@erich.triumf.ca
|> TRIUMF (TRI-University Meson Facility) | Voice: 604-222-1047 loc 327/333
|> 4004 WESBROOK MALL, UBC CAMPUS | FAX: 604-222-1074
|> University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., CANADA V6T 2A3
|> Damien says " If you don't STAND for SOMETHING, you'll FALL for ANYTHING "
|> These are my opinions, which should ONLY make you read, think, and question.
|> They do NOT necessarily reflect the views of my employer or fellow workers.
I was reading an industry publication that indicated the one thing
that *will* hurt O2 sensors is silicates which I believe is found in
antifreeze. ie. leaking head gaskets
Greg Marciniak
Christopher Lawson
[Snip]]
>195 * .55 = 107.25 / 10 / 2.54 = 4.22 inches
>
>now the tire height is approximately 4.22 * 2 + 15 = 23.44 in
>
>a 205/50R15 would have a height of 23.07 in
>
>The 205/55R15 might work but the speedo would be off by a bit. I doubt if
>you would
>notice much in the way of better traction with such a slight difference in
>tire width. For better traction, go with a better brand or softer rubber
>compound. If you are running stock tires, chances are these tires were
>picked for a combination of traction and tire life. In my experience,
>most of the stock tires equipped with performance tires are less than
>optimal.
Actually, you're not guaranteed that the tire will be exactly the
size calculated above. I've seen variations of up to 1/2 inch between
tires of differing brands. As for the speedo error, at 55 mph, the
speedo would read 54.13 mph (a error of -1.6%). Not terribly significant
as the speedo usually isn't more accurate than 2 percent of reading
anyway.
-Chris
Bucky Fellini
The 205/50 will fit on the stock rims. You may want to ask a wheel person
if you are okay with the stock offset. I Estimate you should be okay.
But I am not qualified to tell you this with any assurity.
The 205/50 tire has a smaller diameter than the original but only by 5 mm
so your car will actually begoing slower than the speedo reads.
The traction of the tire depends upon the tire compound, but assuming you
go with a fairly decent tire you can expect an increase if only slight to
you cornering ability. The integra can pull .87 g in stock trim on the
skidpad with just changeing the tires you might at best be able to
up the g-number to possibly .91 if wanted to spring for the best tires
available (I recomend Pirelli P-zero or Dunlop SP 8000 ) .
If you want to add large amounts of preformance I suggest consulting with
Jackson Racing
Jackson Racing
7531 Cerritos Avenue
Stanton, CA 90680
(714) 827-7990
(714) 827-0858 Fax
They can hook you up with all the aftermarkt preformance plusses you can
dream of and advise you better on a rim and tire combo for much increased
preformance.
Mitch Loescher
>In article <36pmtj...@oasys.dt.navy.mil> law...@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Christopher Lawson) writes:
>>In rec.autos.tech, mu...@reg.triumf.ca (FRED W. BACH) writes:
;>>concentrations in gasoline (.001 to .050 percentage) as a result
;>>of the normal petroleum refining.
;>
;>Most gasolines I analyse have a few % of the xylenes ( ortho, meta and
;>para ) so I'd suspect your numbers should be 0.1-5%.
Xylenes, toluene, and benzene are added to control octane. In the refinery
they get these by taking a C6-C8 cyclic cut from the pipestills, and react
them in a reformer ("powerformer" if it is at Exxon) to get the aromatics.
This "reformate" is then blended into base stocks to meet octane QC specs.
It's been this way ever since the lead was removed.
Reformate is a great solvent because it has some unreacted parafins and
aromatics so it has both solution activities. This is why it is used as a
carrier solvent for lots of fuel system chemicals like Techron, and others.
It is not the xylenes themselves that have the cleansing properties.
;>>A good example of toxic by-products is the burning of methanol in an engine.
;>>The main by-products are indeed H2O (as steam) and CO2. But you also get a
;>>large quantity of formaldehyde and other aldehydes. These are not friendly
;>>gases. BTW the typical by-products of methanol burning are more easily
;>>controlled with an appropriately designed cat converter than the typical
;>>gasoline by-products.
Formaldehyde is more than unfriendly, it is carcinogenic. Methanol has a
whole lot more technical problems than cold start emissions too, unless
you're a conspiracy theorist who believes oil companies are out to get us.
- Mitch Loescher
-----------------------------------------------------------
'88 Hawk GT (grey) | "...but my pure refined
'87 Audi 5000S Quattro | hatred is reserved for
-----------------------------| guidance counselors." - C.
Dept of Chemical Engineering | Slater from Pump Up The
Texas A & M University | Volume
Matt Lundberg
Bob Benson <bob_b...@qmail.ssc.gov> wrote:
>In article <36mmqs$c...@dcsun4.us.oracle.com>, cxc...@us.oracle.com (Calvin
>Cheng) wrote:
>
>> a rim meant for 195/55R15 tires. The car is question is an Acura Integra '94/95.
>
>the OEM tires. Most will handle a +2 increase. At +3, you frequently need
>new rims.
>
Yes, the rims can (usually) handle such a tire, but it is often the
case that the mfr uses undersized rims from the start! Then you'd
have worse handling than with the 195/55.
From what I've seen, a 195/55 is a good fit on a 5.5" rim, while the
205/50 is a very bad fit on this rim, requiring a 7" for a proper
fit. And do you know just how wide the 205/50 is? Will it even
fit under your fenders? Remember that the tread on a 195/50 is
more than 1/2" wider than the tread on a 195/55. The 205/50 will
likely hit the fenderwells.
Daryl Krzewinski
> In article <bob_benson-...@bbenson.ssc.gov>,
> Bob Benson <bob_b...@qmail.ssc.gov> wrote:
[snip]
> From what I've seen, a 195/55 is a good fit on a 5.5" rim, while the
> 205/50 is a very bad fit on this rim, requiring a 7" for a proper
> fit. And do you know just how wide the 205/50 is? Will it even
> fit under your fenders? Remember that the tread on a 195/50 is
> more than 1/2" wider than the tread on a 195/55. The 205/50 will
> likely hit the fenderwells.
I think what you meant to say is that the tread *patch* is over 0.5"
wider on a 195/50 than a 195/55 tire. Irregardless of the aspect
ratio, a 195 tire's tread will be 195mm wide, as that is what the
number means. As the aspect ratio gets lower though, the tread patch
(the area contacting the road) will get larger because the shoulder
of the carcass gets more square, in turn allowing more of the tread
to contact the road.
Anyway, considering how tiny the 195/55 tires look in the wheel wells
of the Integra, I doubt the 205s will rub the fenders. Whether it'll
improve his handling or not is another story.
- Daryl
Calvin Cheng
> case that the mfr uses undersized rims from the start! Then you'd
> have worse handling than with the 195/55.
> From what I've seen, a 195/55 is a good fit on a 5.5" rim, while the
> 205/50 is a very bad fit on this rim, requiring a 7" for a proper
The rims are 6JJ, so it is going to be tight.
> fit under your fenders? Remember that the tread on a 195/50 is
> more than 1/2" wider than the tread on a 195/55. The 205/50 will
> likely hit the fenderwells.
I think it'll barelly do with that, it is going to be almost sticking
out of the fender wells.
I have gotten a lot of posts from people suggesting that it is a
better idea to go with higher performance tires of the same
dimensions, and better suspension. I think I buy the argument too,
especially given the fact that I am unlikely to be able to go with a
much bigger tire. I might be able to put in 16" rims, but I will
probably have to use very low profile tires.
+--------------------+----------------------------+-----DISCLAIMER---------+
| Calvin Cheng | E-mail: cxc...@oracle.com | "All great works are |
| Sun Products | V-mail: (415) 506-6022 | done in defiance of |
| Oracle Corporation | Fax: (415) 506-7200 | management"- B Woodward|
+--------------------+----------------------------+------------------------+
--
+--------------------+----------------------------+-----DISCLAIMER---------+
| Calvin Cheng | E-mail: cxc...@oracle.com | "All great works are |
| Sun Products | V-mail: (415) 506-6022 | done in defiance of |
| Oracle Corporation | Fax: (415) 506-7200 | management"- B Woodward|
+--------------------+----------------------------+------------------------+
Daryl Krzewinski
> No, I didn't mean to say the tread patch. Tires are not rated by
> tread width, but by body width, as interpreted by each mfr.
Sorry, but that is incorrect. The tire measuring standard which was
implemented several decades ago uses never referred to carcass
width, as that varies far too much depending on tire load, air
pressure, etc.
If you'll read the standard, the tire is measured (in an uninflated state)
as: tread width (in mm), sidewall aspect ratio, speed rating, rim width.
This is pretty much the international standard, unless there was a dramatic
change the past few days. I doubt there was, but in a decade or so of
amateur racing I've *always* heard this, and that the aspect ratio is
the measure of the carcass height from bead to tread with respect to
tread width as well.
Two things explain your discrepancy: 1.) You measured the tire mounted on
a rim, under load, and inflated, all three of which are a no-no with
reference to manufacturers measurements.
2.) There is, no doubt, some fudging by manufacturers with regards
to where useful tread begins and ends. Just as with ANY rating
(be it HP, or torque, or anything else that can affect cost), there
might be variations in the translation of that. Take any 5 205/50 tires
from 5 different manufacturers, and I know that they all will vary
quite a bit in tread width and sidewall height.
> Hmmmm. I just measured the tires on my car. I have 195/60 tires
> on a 6" rim, and the tread patch measures about 6.75" wide, counting
> the edge of the tread that doesn't contact the road except when
[...]
- Daryl
Matt Lundberg
Daryl Krzewinski <krzew...@iccgcc.cs.hh.ab.com> wrote:
>
>I think what you meant to say is that the tread *patch* is over 0.5"
>wider on a 195/50 than a 195/55 tire. Irregardless of the aspect
>ratio, a 195 tire's tread will be 195mm wide, as that is what the
>number means. As the aspect ratio gets lower though, the tread patch
>(the area contacting the road) will get larger because the shoulder
>of the carcass gets more square, in turn allowing more of the tread
>to contact the road.
>
tread width, but by body width, as interpreted by each mfr.
Hmmmm. I just measured the tires on my car. I have 195/60 tires
on a 6" rim, and the tread patch measures about 6.75" wide, counting
the edge of the tread that doesn't contact the road except when
under hard cornering. 195mm = 7.68in., and my tire's outside
body width is about 8" on my rims, which are a bit wide for this
size of tire.
If you read any mfr data, I think you'll find that a 195/50 has
a 7.25 inch (or so) tread and a 195/70's tread is just a hair,
if any, wider than 6".
Mark Kiesow
In article <1994Oct13...@iccgcc.cs.hh.ab.com>, krzew...@iccgcc.cs.hh.ab.com (Daryl Krzewinski) writes:
:In article <37jh2l$e...@bigfoot.wustl.edu>, m...@artsci.wustl.edu (Matt Lundberg) writes:
:
:> No, I didn't mean to say the tread patch. Tires are not rated by
:> tread width, but by body width, as interpreted by each mfr.
:
:Sorry, but that is incorrect. The tire measuring standard which was
:implemented several decades ago uses never referred to carcass
:width, as that varies far too much depending on tire load, air
:pressure, etc.
:
:If you'll read the standard, the tire is measured (in an uninflated state)
:as: tread width (in mm), sidewall aspect ratio, speed rating, rim width.
Daryl, I'm not sure where your 'standard' is coming from but I think I can
clear this up. I will be referencing the 1994 Yearbook from the Tire and Rim
Association (TRA). TRA sets industry standards for tire and wheel
manufacturers. They refer to the first number of a tire size designation
as the 'Tire Design Section Width'. They define it as the "width of a new
tire, including 24-hour inflation growth and including normal sidewalls, but
not including protective side ribs, bars, or decorations." BTW standard
load tires are inflated to 26 psi for this measurement. The measurement is
done using a standard width rim assigned to each tire size. It is rounded
of to the nearest 10mm, but on a 5 digit, not a zero.
Hope this clears this up and puts an end to this thread.
Mark Kiesow
Chassis Design Engineer
ra...@maple.circa.ufl.edu
>on a 6" rim, and the tread patch measures about 6.75" wide, counting
>the edge of the tread that doesn't contact the road except when
>under hard cornering. 195mm = 7.68in., and my tire's outside
>body width is about 8" on my rims, which are a bit wide for this
>size of tire.
>
>If you read any mfr data, I think you'll find that a 195/50 has
>a 7.25 inch (or so) tread and a 195/70's tread is just a hair,
>if any, wider than 6".
WHAT?...
The "patch" is not going to change due to the aspect ratio...
A 225 is a 225. Approx 9"...(25mm = 1inch)...
The only reasons a tire of a "higher" aspect ratio would have a
smaller patch are:
The rim is several inches smaller than the tire, thus pulling
the outer edges of the tread in (and down) toward the
rim. You can overcome this by lowering the tire
pressure, or getting larger (wider) rims.
Or the tire pressures are WAY TOO HIGH...
If you compare a 225/50/15 on a 10" rim,
and a 225/75/15 on a 10" rim...
They WILL be the same width...
LATER!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
WreasirX-- | Targeting America... |
"Watch For Him; But Don't Blink!" | |
Samir A. Siddiqui | ----- |
Wrea...@Grove.Circa.Ufl.Edu | / | \ |
Ra...@Maple.Circa.Ufl.Edu | / | \ |
Cir...@Maple.Circa.Ufl.Edu | |TheWhiteHouse| |
Cir...@Elm.Circa.Ufl.Edu (UNIX) | \ | / |
Ras...@Aol.Com | \ | / |
SASid...@Aol.Com | ----- |
AFN0...@Freenet.Ufl.Edu | |
Ciz...@Aol.Com | ...WreasirX!|
---------------------------------------------------------------------