ContinuousWave
Whaler
Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
Using Startron and Carbon Guard
search | FAQ |
profile | register | author help
|
|
ContinuousWave Whaler Moderated Discussion Areas
ContinuousWave: Whaler Performance
Using Startron and Carbon Guard
|
| Author | Topic: Using Startron and Carbon Guard |
| PDM |
posted 06-27-2008 08:41 AM ET (US) 
I've read several articles on Startron's fuel additive and have started adding it to the fuel for my Evinrude 175. For many years I have also used Carbon Guard at the suggestion of my mechanic. So far I've had 10 trouble-free years of service from the engine and expect several more (at least). Is it wise to use both products at the same time? My thought is that since they address separate problems (water separation and carbon deposits) they should be OK to use together. Any thoughts on this? |
| highanddry |
posted 06-27-2008 05:01 PM ET (US)
I wonder the same thing and I cannot find any hard data. I use [Mercury Precision Care Engine Treatment QUICKLEEN™] as directed. I wonder how mixing in StaBil or Startron and others might overload the fuel with additives work at cross purpose or the same purpose, essentially double dosing. The [Mercury Precision Care Engine Treatment QUICKLEEN™] which is about 75% Techron I trust, the rest I am not sure about. The corn fuel is leading us into uncharted waters, the mantra used to be, no additives--period. |
| glen e |
posted 06-27-2008 05:33 PM ET (US)
I have run [Mercury Precision Care Engine Treatment QUICKLEEN™] every other tank and MDR Water Zorb on the alternate tank; been doing this for 600 or so hours with no problems; innards scope completely clean; plugs last 400-500 hours and no water in fuel problems. Works for me. |
| jimh |
posted 06-27-2008 10:48 PM ET (US)
The purpose of QUICKLEEN, according to its maker is: ---------- --Detergent to clean combustion chamber deposits It does not seem to be aimed at the carburetor or the fuel system. It seems to target the combustion chamber. Since I have a two-cycle motor, I just use the premium oil recommended by my engine manufacturer to prevent carbon build up. The oil contains additives to prevent build up of carbon. If figure that the cost is probably about the same as adding a $10 bottom of something to the gasoline, and having the additive in the oil is much handier because there is no mixing or ratio to figure out. |
| highanddry |
posted 06-27-2008 11:18 PM ET (US)
Mercury Precision Care Engine Treatment QUICKLEEN™ is mostly Chevron Techron, which is a fuel and combustion chamber cleansing agent. However, I don't think the Mercury Precision Care Engine Treatment QUICKLEEN™ is intended to suspend water, stabilize fuel or deal with Zea mays indentata [corn] 10% fuel. |
| highanddry |
posted 06-28-2008 03:02 PM ET (US)
[Offered a criticism of something that I did not say--jimh] All premium oils (including Mercury DFI) oil contain ingredients to prevent carbon build up and ring sticking, and yet [the makers of the premium oil], as do others, recommend an additive to further clean the engine. Your engine and your premium oil are not magic, and you would gain the same benefit Quickleen users gain with the use of the product. You might as well purchase Techron in the bottle at your local discount box store. The other mystery ingredients of Quickleen I would be curious about. The original question that the OP asked has not been answered despite your corrections and added confusion. Does Startron cause a problem when used with products like Quickleen? |
| jimh |
posted 06-28-2008 04:46 PM ET (US)
I have the same concerns as expressed by PDM about these self-brewed batches of boutique fuel made by pouring in all kinds of additives. That's why I tend to avoid combining multiple additives. Glen's approach of one-additive-at-a-time is more prudent. I don't understand the logic being used here regarding premium oil and its anti-carbon additives. highanddry says that the oil I use (which really has not been identified) is not "magic" and therefore I will need to use QUICKLEEN. From this about all I can conclude is that QUICKLEEN is magic. If there are no carbon deposits to remove, then QUICKLEEN can't remove them. I don't understand how I am supposed to know that one product does not do what it says, yet the other product does. In any case, there has been a big diversion from the original topic regarding Startron and Carbon Guard. Who brought up QUICKLEEN in the first place? PDN--The people that made your motor also make fuel additives, and in particular they make 2+4 Fuel Conditioner. This is targeted at the fuel system, not the combustion chamber, and is touted to "...[help] prevent gum and varnish deposits, spark plug fouling, carburetor icing and the deterioration of fuel and fuel system components. For all 2- and 4-cycle engines." |
| highanddry |
posted 06-28-2008 09:51 PM ET (US)
Jim, you are an English professor, I am an engineer and a scientist by training and more educated than yourself. Your wrong and your childish corrections fool nobody nor do they provide your engine the cleaning qualities of Quickleen, no matter how you twist words around. No oil on the market--period--offers the full advantages of Quickleen and similar fuel additives in maintaining engine cleanliness. The effectiveness of the Techron formula is proven. . |
| highanddry |
posted 06-28-2008 09:58 PM ET (US)
JimH, I think your confused. You ask who brought up Quickleen, I did because it is and serves the same purpose as does the Evinrude Carbon Guard product. ------------------------------------------------------ Evinrude BRP List Price (2007) $ 15.99 Our DISCOUNT PRICE 20% OFF! $12.79. A gasoline additive formulated to minimize carbon deposit build-up. Per OMC BRP Bombardier (Evinrude - Johnson) recommendations: It is recommended that oil be changed on 4 stroke engines after one application of Carbon Guard. Compare to Mercury Quickleen for yourself. The products are comparable in purpose. |
| jimh |
posted 06-28-2008 10:49 PM ET (US)
'dry still needs to resolve the apparent contradiction between one product touted to prevent carbon build up and one that says it removes it. If you would like to be scientific, show us some data about why running oil with additives does not work but running gasoline with additives does. In a two-cycle engine they both go to the same place. |
| jimh |
posted 06-28-2008 11:09 PM ET (US)
One problem with dosing the gasoline with additives is the mix ratio needed and the size of your fuel tank. If you have a boat with a larger tank, say 75-gallons or more, and you want to dose the fuel with an additive, you often need a large amount of additive, particularly if you are going for the high-concentration generally suggested to produce a remedial effect as opposed to an on-going treatment regimen. One work-around is to wait until the main tank level is low, then throw in the additives to create the high concentration. However, you have to be a good manager of your fuel to make sure you don't run out of fuel if you're trying to run with just 20 gallons in the tank. I also worry about dosing the fuel with additives that are strong solvents (or "cleaners" as they are usually called instead). I don't want to leave 50-gallons of fuel in the tank that is doped up with some super-solvent. It might eat away something besides the carbon in the combustion chamber. So in general I think it is preferable to brew up a batch of treated fuel, then run it though the engine and get it out of the system. To facilitate running treated fuel, it can be handy to use an auxiliary tank. A 6-gallon or 12-gallon tank will allow you to create a manageable batch of treated fuel which can be run through your engine. You can run the auxiliary tank dry, then switch back to the main tank. The only caution with auxiliary tanks is the fuel flow rate needed for larger engines at higher speed; make sure the fuel pickup and supply hose from the auxiliary tank can supply fuel and won't starve the engine at higher speeds. |
| jimh |
posted 06-28-2008 11:27 PM ET (US)
ASIDE to highanddry: I am not an Professor of English, but I do enjoy precision in language and clarity of expression, much the same way an engineer or scientist seeks accuracy and consistency. I believe that writing expresses thoughts and becomes a window into the mind, and when I see sloppy writing I tend to associate it with sloppy thinking and confused minds. As for my habit of conforming certain words to their proper spelling, it is done specifically to enhance the information content. If we randomly talk one day about the E-TEC and the next day about the E-TECH, the etech, the E-Tek (and so on), all those misspellings just dilute the value of the information. As a highly educated scientist and engineer, I am sure you can appreciate that accuracy and precision of expression are useful. In much the same way that an engineer wants to express a relationship in a precise mathematical equation, I want to collect information and organize it with accuracy and precision. |
| PDM |
posted 06-30-2008 02:10 PM ET (US)
Thanks for all the feedback. I had not even considered the additives that are in the premium two-stroke oil that I use. That is one more chemical going into the engine. I've had the boat out several times and have burned through the old tank of gas that was stored and "sta-bil-ized" I'm now running on fresh gas with both Carbon Guard and Startron. The engine is running better than ever although it may just seem that way compared to my last few trips on "old" gas. However I do think that the additives are increasing my fuel use (gallons per hour/ mile). I was out fishing on Saturday and my total trip was 19 miles and the fuel flow meter registered 19 gallons used for the trip. This one mile per gallon seems low. I run an Evinrude 175 on a Dauntless/ Ventura 20. Does anybody else notice decreased fuel efficiency when using additives? |
| TransAm |
posted 06-30-2008 02:54 PM ET (US)
quote: jimh, you're not going to make the non-institutionally educated folks happy with that comment. My current Yamaha mechanic is about a quick and complete as anyone I have ever seen work on a motor. Trying to make grammatical sense of his invoice is another story. I would never assume from his invoice that his mind is sloppy or confused. As for dosing my fuel, I find it quite easy to do. If I put in 50 gallons, 5 oz. of Yamaha Ring Free goes in on top. The 32 oz. bottle is calibrated so there is never any high or low concentration on the tank-always the same. That would hold true if more than 1 type of additive is used. |
| TransAm |
posted 06-30-2008 03:04 PM ET (US)
I always heard the saying goes "The eyes are the window to the soul" |
| PDM |
posted 07-01-2008 08:47 AM ET (US)
Our educators no longer emphasize clear and concise writing skills. Students have come to rely on Spellchecker as the solution to sloppy writing. Teachers encourage students to just get their thoughts on paper but neglect to teach students to edit those thoughts. Go back and reread Strunk & White's Elements of Style. In any profession clear and concise communication is essential. |
| K Albus |
posted 07-01-2008 09:33 AM ET (US)
quote: The owners manual for my 2002 Optimax 135 directs me to add Quickleen every time I refuel my boat. It also directs me to use Mercury Optimax DFI oil, which includes various engine cleaning additives. In addition, my dealer provided me with a technical service bulletin from Mercury which states that fuel stablizer should be added every time I refuel my boat. I have been following all of these directions from Mercury for six years, and I have never had a fuel-related problem with my motor. Based on my experience, I don't believe that you will experience any problems by mixing a fuel stabilizer and a carbon preventative in your fuel at the same time. |
| K Albus |
posted 07-01-2008 09:34 AM ET (US)
By the way, that quote is from Jim H in another fuel-related thread. |
| jimh |
posted 07-01-2008 09:38 AM ET (US)
'dry instructed me to "Compare [Carbon Guard] to Mercury Quickleen for yourself." OK, here is the comparison: BRP's Carbon Guard sells for $15.99 for 12-oz. Mercury's Quickleen sells for $13.32 for 12-oz. At first glance it appears that Quickleen is less expensive, but we need to examine the relative concentrations of each product to determine how many gallons of fuel each will treat. Carbon Guard is recommended in this concentration: "For 2-cycle Engines - Add 1 oz. of Carbon Guard for every 8 gallons of gasoline. For 4-cycle Engines - Add 1 oz of Carbon Guard for every 16 gallons of gasoline." Quickleen is recommended is specific concentrations depending on the motor. See your Mercury motor manual for advice. I did find one manual on-line, but it said to see the label on the package for the proper mix ratio. I did see one citation of "12 fl oz (355mL) treats 72 gallons (272 liters)." This implies that you add 1 oz for every 6 gallons. The price comparison then becomes: Carbon Guard ($15.99 / 12 oz) x (1 oz/ 8-gallon) = $0.1665 / gallon (two-cycle) ($15.99 / 12 oz) x (1 oz/ 16-gallon) = $0.083 / gallon (four-cycle) Quickleen ($13.32 / 12 oz) x (1 oz/ 6-gallon) = $0.185 / gallon The results of my comparison are that Carbon Guard costs less than Quickleen. ASIDE to highanddry: When making this comparison I made every attempt to get the price and volume of each package correct. I am certain that people would find my data flawed if I made a mistake in the price or the volume, but I don't consider those mistakes any different than getting the name wrong. To me, getting the name of the product wrong is an error which is just as bad as getting the price or volume of the package wrong. Any of those errors are sloppy errors, and I don't think that it is reasonable to endorse accuracy about numerical values as being more important than accuracy about the actual name of the product. Re using Carbon Guard with other additives: "Carbon Guard works best when used in conjunction with other fuel treatments such as fogging oil and fuel conditioner. Fogging oil helps prevent rust and corrosion from condensation. Stabilizers or fuel conditioners (such as 2 plus 4 fuel conditioner) will help reduce the build-up of gum and varnish." Source: http://www.evinrude-parts.com/page3.html It does seem reasonable to me that if fuel additives are going to be used at the same time it is more likely that additives of the same brand or family will work harmoniously. In that regard, since Carbon Guard was the additive of choice used originally, I suggest that BRP's 2 + 4 Fuel Conditioner might be the preferred fuel stabilizer. |
| TransAm |
posted 07-01-2008 11:46 AM ET (US)
I believe the comparison that was asked for was one of purpose, not price. It is nice to know, however, which is cheaper. |
| jimh |
posted 07-01-2008 01:32 PM ET (US)
I don't see explicit instruction on how to make the comparison, but, since I found the products to be intended for precisely the same purpose, it seemed pointless to try to draw any difference in that realm. Since there is no scientific basis to compare the results, that was also abandoned and left to anecdotes. Cost was all that was left for me. Now that the cost of marine fuel is well above $4-per-gallon, the incremental cost of dosing your fuel with an additive becomes (comparatively) less burdensome. Adding $0.083 to the cost of each gallon when those gallons are $4.50 each does not seem like much of a disincentive. So mix and brew as necessary, I say. An additional source of additives is, of course, the gasoline itself. Many brands include additives based on Techron. There are also specialty marine fuels such as Valvtect which have additives, both preservative and detergent. (Note the spelling of that product well, as it is also chronically misspelled.) As I am sure K Albus knows from his practice in the law, the owner's manual only carries the advice to enrich the fuel with additives as a suggestion. If it were required for an engine to be continually treated with a particular brand of fuel additive in order to maintain the warranty coverage, there could be an issue with creation of mandatory tie-in sales, which are usually prohibited. |
| K Albus |
posted 07-01-2008 02:09 PM ET (US)
My goal in fueling my boat is primarily to keep my motor running properly. Although maintaining warranty coverage was a concern in the past, it was never the primary concern, and is no longer of any concern in my case. While the cost of the fuel additives can get expensive, it is minimal in the context of the overall cost of ownership and operation of the boat. I'm willing to spend a few extra dollars per fill-up is going to keep my boat running well. The question asked in the original post had nothing to do with warranty coverage. The poster asked if it was wise or acceptable to use both a carbon reduction product and a fuel stabilizer product at the same time. My previous response was meant to convey three primary concepts: 1) Check your owners manual; 2) Mercury directs (I should have stated "strongly suggests") owners of Optimax motors to use both products at the same time; and 3) I have used both products at the same time for approximately six years, and I have experienced no fuel-related problems. If Mercury, or any other manufacturer, required the use of a specific brand of fuel stabilizer or a specific brand of carbon reduction product in order to maintain warranty production, they would possibly run afoul of certain anti-trust statutes. However, requiring the use a fuel stabilizer and/or a carbon reduction product would not likely be a violation of such laws. |
| jimh |
posted 07-01-2008 09:19 PM ET (US)
I have been swayed: I am going to my dealer (Lockeman's Boat and Hardware) tomorrow to buy a bottle of CARBON GUARD. I will add it to my next tank of fuel, and I will report back with any anecdotal observations. I often use BRP 2+4 FUEL CONDITIONER on a routine basis, particularly when I anticipate that the fuel I am adding to my vessel's fuel tank will not be consumed in the next few days. The fuel in my vessel's tank right now has not been treated with any additives because, in large part, I purchased VALVTECT marine fuel, which already contained additives of a preservative and detergent nature. That fuel is about four weeks old, but I do not anticipate any problems with it because of the special additives it already contained. |
| jimh |
posted 07-02-2008 08:18 PM ET (US)
As promised, I went to my dealer today to buy some Carbon Guard. My dealer has two long shelves full of BRP Evinrude-Johnson oils, additives, greases, cleaners, and other engine accessories. I looked them over carefully, but I could not find Carbon Guard. "Dave," I said, "where's the Carbon Guard?" Dave, a master mechanic who has been working on outboard motors for decades, said, "We don't stock it. Almost all of our customers run XD-50 or XD-100 oil, and we find that their motors do not need Carbon Guard." "Carbon Guard," Dave explained, "is not a shock treatment. It's for routine use. But if you are running the good oil, you don't need it." |
| |
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.