Opinions on Miller diesel fuel additive

I would be very interested to read your own experiences of these events.

David

Ah, another "know nothing tosser".

It's amazing how quick folk who know f*ck all are to offer their "knowledge".

Feel free to NOT reply to any thread on which you have nothing to offer other than your preconceptions.

Tim

If the product is so good , why are the big fuel companies not adding it at scource to the fuel. The car manufacturers specifying it to upspec the cars output

Most of these products just boost the cetane value of the fuel.

Do some Googling about rolling roads. Or read any of the forums where they are used.

To calculate the engine BHP accurately, you need to know the exact losses in the transmission, etc. Which can vary between two cars of the same model. They are useful for tuning etc an engine to give before and after results - but not for checking it is exactly to maker's spec.

The snag is your posts fall more into opinion category. Not even some reasonably accurate fuel consumption figures taken over some time to equalise things out. As well as depending on how you drive and road conditions, weather has an effect on this too - cars use more fuel in winter.

I think most of the big fuel companies add it at the station rather than at source as it gives the opportunity for supermarkets to sell a cheaper product. They do use additives in supermarket fuel but it's a cheaper package of additives.

It's entirely possible that in performance terms I'm achieving nothing that couldn't be achieved by buying my fuel from Shell/BP/ESSO etc. but it's looking (at the moment), like I'm getting the same benefits at a slightly cheaper cost.

That's certainly one of their jobs. Millers claim "Enhanced detergency package for quicker clean up and prolonged injector cleanliness."

My car may just be benefitting from this as it's consumption is returning to what It was initially achieving.

Tim

I thought losses could be measured by measuring the "power off drag on overrun"? I'm only recalling something from Top Gear so I know it's likely to be wrong (for that reason alone) but it sounds sensible enough. ;-)

What's wrong with calculating it like that?

Tim

I've never claimed at any point that I was offering more than my opinion and initial impressions. I'm well aware that there are numerous variables that can make getting a definitive answer difficult.

That said, I see nothing wrong in soliciting opinions in the hope that I might get feedback from a high mileage driver (a taxi driver say) who has tried this product over a long period and whether it seemed beneficial or not. THAT sort of opinion (whether the response is positive or negative) I would accord a fair amount of respect to. Knee jerk responses that "you're only looking for affirmation" I will not accept, particularly when they come from folk who haven't even tried it.

Tim

Yes, of course two car of the same model can have different losses through out the car . electrically and mechanically. Even straight off the production line they can vary too. Mass production.....

The only way to accurately measure the output is directly off the crank. I agree, the figures are only an estimate.

When a lot of the same model is tested by the same operator at the same place, he / she does get to know the standard.

I have a graph for the output at the wheels as well, but the manufacturers rarely give out those figures, but the Rolling Road company test enough cars to know if one is above or below the norm.

Our 'wheel' output was 248hp at 3820 rpm, and 377ft/lb at 2500 rpm, but

I ask again, what are your own experiences of using rolling roads ?

How do you establish the output of your cars, because I thought that you had modified one of them ?

David

They test lots of standard cars like yours? Why?

Quite. And they're likely to tell you what you want to hear.

I'm not particularly interested in a figure. And to use a rolling road purely for tuning purposes is extremely expensive.

I do not know, I did not ask. The chap did give me some examples verbally with regard to other's cars, though.

Why ? How would that benefit them ?

I suppose if the guy was without integrity, he might set the device to output a lower figure by manipulating the atmospheric pressure and temperature settings, then suggest a 'tuner' to upgrade the car and then to return for another run.

I give the operator no clue as to what I am expecting, nor if the car is standard.

As I wrote before, I had taken another car there that was down on standard, did I want to hear that ?

I do not think it is 'extremely expensive'. So, how would you ascertain whether the modification (s) you make were worthwhile ?

I found, having used a few accelerometer units, that they were quite inconsistent.

I have not modified the 335d. btw.

David

Knee jerk responses that "you're only looking for affirmation" I will not accept, particularly when they come from folk who haven't even tried it.

Tim

Keep Googling on this subject, you will soon find out that Humans are really, really bad at any sort of scientific evaluation, in the absence of properly conducted test data.

Gareth.

Ah, turbo temperature compensation.

Actually it's always been one of the cheapest things I've had done (but then I do know them & they're very good at it).

Usual costs I hear bandied about is 400 quid plus parts. And of course you need to find one who knows what he's doing in the first place.

At that price I'd agree, but I've normally paid =A390 a session.

That's the one I've used for years. On earlier diesel engines it never fail ed to reduce smoke, which must indicate more efficient combustion, and I wo uld never have gone for an MOT without using it a few days in advance. To n ote an improvement on modern engines you probably would need to monitor con sumption, but I'm convinced it always pays for itself. By contrast I wasn't too impressed by the Hermetite offering.