April 17, 2021, 04:36:07 AM
collapse
collapse

Author Topic:  ACES IV - An effective octane booster and anti-wear additive?  (Read 130358 times)

Offline SHOdded

  • Forum Supporters
  • Elite Member
  • *
  • Beltsville, MD
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 13039
  • -Received: 4242
  • Posts: 15922
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 6
ACES IV - An effective octane booster and anti-wear additive?
« on: August 05, 2015, 04:58:25 AM »
Basic info on their products:
http://bndautomotive.com/aces-formulas/

An overview/results of use article:

Testing notes about ACES IV not posted before!
 
This is kind of an article that was written by David Vizard about ACES IV that is a compilation of his notes when evaluating the additive for third party consideration:

 Regards,

 Brian

ACES IV Fuel Additive Objective Evaluation
 by David Vizard

 I should warn those of you who are into instant gratification that this is going to be one of the longest tests you will read. If you don't want to wade through, or cannot wait to get to the test results then go to the sidebar entitled "ACES IV Test - Quick Check" at the end of this feature.

 Normally product tests would be in our product test section but in this instance I felt there was so much of general interest in the testing of the ACES IV that it warranted going under that heading. I wanted to congratulate and thank a number of companies that helped out along the way (named at the end of this article). Also there are psychological aspects and associated tales worth telling as it all contributes to how many of us see additives and their role or place in the market.

Additives - General Reputation - Snake Oil !

 You would think that only the youngest and most naive among us would whole heartedly believe all the claims made on additive bottles. But there is, in most of us, an element that wants to believe, if only to a minor degree, that the claims on the bottle have some foundation in truth. If you want proof of this look no further than the staggering sales of age defying creams. Maybe modern science is just now producing something that works but up to the '80's I'm sure every single bottle and jar sold was substantially misrepresented. This has been my experience with automotive oil and fuel additives - a lot of hype and not much else.

 I have been dyno testing additives since about 1964 and one thing is for sure - they have, in my experience, the highest rate of any product group for failing to work. So much so that by the late '70's, after a couple of dozen additive tests, all of which failed to deliver one iota of the power increases claimed, I stopped testing. The principle reason was because the salable editorial I was getting from such tests was almost zero. I say "almost zero" with good reason because there were some incidents worth a few words. One was when I was testing a lot of performance parts for a book I was doing on the Ford 2 litre Pinto motor.

 I had built a dyno mule motor, which, in base line form, would click off near identical power curves time after time from one week to the next. I had just finished a series of tests and was getting ready to pull the motor from the dyno when a young man with salesman written all over him came into the shop. Guess what - he had the latest and greatest oil additive the world had ever seen and had, as far as he was concerned, all the right pieces of paper to prove it.

 After a cursory look at the printed blurb I said "we have a test motor and a dyno right here - let's test it". It was apparent that this young man had never even heard of a dyno let alone seen one. After a very brief explanation of what a dyno did he agreed to a test. To establish a baseline five power curves were taken. These all fell well within 1.5% of each other so were used to get an average result. Next the additive was added and the motor run as per instructions for 10 or so minutes to let the additive do it's stuff. The "after" power tests were then done. Over the 2500 to 7000 rpm band tested the motor lost an average of 0.2 of a horsepower. A change that small is within experimental error but if the product had given even 1% gain tests would have almost certainly shown it. When confronted with the results this young salesman looked me right in the eye and sternly commented - "This proves to me that dyno's are a waste of time !" The need to believe in this product, regardless of strong evidence to the contrary, over ruled all.

Knowing It Doesn't Work

 Of course there are those that know the product they are touting does not work - but they are going to sell it anyway. A few years ago at SEMA I approached a senior staff member of a company that was throwing huge sums of money promoting the sale of a well-known and somewhat controversial additive. I approached the person concerned and introduced myself in my capacity as a tech writer. I inquired about the possibility of performing some comprehensive testing to establish the worth of the additive for once and for all. The interesting thing is that my suggestion was very well received and it seemed like this gentleman could not do enough for me to help these tests get published. He rounded off what he thought would be the end of the conversation with comments along the lines of "we will get a motor on our dyno and call you when the tests are ready to be run". To this I replied "well no - I had in mind to use my own dyno so that the results will be completely independent (I was subtle enough not to add "and fudge free")". It was obvious this gentleman was amazed that a tech writer actually owned a dyno but more to the point his whole demeanor changed. With what appeared to be a far more reserved disposition he informed me they would organize something and let me know. I never did hear back !

 From the forgoing it should be easy to see most of my reasoning behind giving up on additive tests - it's a waste of time and usually my money. But there is another. Namely that many additive manufactures (like the one just mentioned) seem to have big advertising budgets and spend large sums advertising or sponsoring events. Selling a story about a massively hyped additive that does not work to a magazine earning hundreds of thousands of dollars annually in advertising from that company is, to say the least, difficult! If the fact that up to about the mid '80's I had borne the cost of dyno testing products is taken into account it won't be difficult to see that for me, testing additives was quickly loosing any appeal whatsoever. The reality was a bit like standing in the workshop men's room and flushing hundred dollar bills down the toilet. If I sound a little pessimistic about additives excuse me, but I think I have reasonable grounds for doing so. All this led me in the mid '80's, to adopt a policy of "no free dyno testing", especially for additive manufactures.

Octane Testing - a Different Way

 During the early '80's the fuels we were buying at the pumps in the US were seemingly at an all time, post '50's, low in terms of octane value. That this was so appeared pretty much common knowledge. It was also apparent that any fuel company that could advertise higher octane on the pump was going to sell more fuel. As a result there appeared to be an "octane war" brewing.

 Having had some experience with fuels and ways and means of raising octane values I was aware that it is possible to formulate a fuel that showed well in a CFR octane test motor for R+M/2 figures but did not resist detonation significantly better in a road motor. Why would a fuel company do that ? At the time brewing octane into unleaded fuels was expensive but making them look better on the pump for the purposes of sales was not. What I wanted to find out was just how good (or not as the case may be) these higher-octane fuels were. A CFR test was not going to tell me anything I did not already know from reading the labels on the service station pumps.

Different Test Procedures

 At this point I felt a different kind of test was needed. One that was more applicable to the motors we drove on the street. The test I conceived was to use a very high compression (14/1), short cammed, small block Chevy and test the power output of fuels rather than doing a direct test of their Octane number. The logic is simple - we don't care what the octane value is just the amount of power at the driving wheels. If you were offered 50 octane fuel that would deliver double the power would you worry about having to retard the timing 20 degrees if that's what it took?

 No - at least not if you are in your right mind. This was the concept of my test motor. It would test for what we might call the power octane value of the fuel. How resistant it was to detonation would be measured by the amount of advance that could be used before a knock sensor found detonation. How effective it was as a fuel would be measured by how much HP was developed at the test speed of 3000 rpm !

 With an intake manifold coupled to the city water supply the temperature of the intake charge, a key issue when testing octane, could be varied by as much as 70 degrees F. The following chart shows the test procedural differences between Motor Octane Numbers (MON) and Research Octane Numbers (RON). The higher temperatures of the MON test typically result in numbers about 8 octane less than the RON test.

 CFR Octane Motor Test Parameters
 Motor Octane Research Octane
 Inlet Air Temp 300 F (149 C 125 F (52 C)
 Water Jacket Temp 212 F (100 C) 212 F (100 C)
 Test RPM 900 RPM 600 RPM

 ACES IV Fuel Additive - Page 2

Service Station Fuel Power Octane

 With the Power Octane test motor ready to go, the first project I did, in about '86, was to test all the popular premium fuels to see how effective some of the then new higher octane ones were. I suspected that a lot of the higher octane values did not significantly reduce detonation in our road cars. This largely proved to be the case. A 93 octane fuel at the intake temperatures seen in a typical high performance road car tolerated less advance and delivered slightly less power than two other brands of 91 octane. It was only when the intake charge temperature was reduced to that seen in a typical drag race car the 93 octane fuel showed any advantage.

 Basically the 93 octane fuel had been arrived at by boosting the Research Octane Number of the fuel, which is measured at a much cooler temp than our road cars run at, rather than the Motor Octane Number, which is nearer the temperature they do run at. The bottom line here is that the extra octane numbers looked good on the pump but did nothing for our road vehicles. What would have been much better was something that helped our road vehicles but did nothing for the octane values as seen by a CFR octane test motor.

 The fuel octane test proved to be the basis of a good magazine feature. When it came out the novel format of these tests prompted American Clean Energy Systems Inc (ACES)., manufacturers of ACES IV additive and the subject of our tests, to contact me. Working on the premise that almost all additives were snake oil (my experience to date had shown this to largely be the case) and that people who peddled it were often out of touch with reality I expected that after a test cost quote this job would go away. Much to my surprise it did not and so started the first of one of the most extensive and time consuming series of tests I have ever conducted.

ACES IV Fuel Additive- The Claims

 The original basis of the ACES IV formula, which was developed for military use, is a story in itself, but we already have too much to cover to get into that. Suffice to say that after extensive tests of their own ACES felt they could justify the following claims.

 1) An increase in the road (or power) Octane effect of the fuel.
 2) An increase in power output while reducing emissions.
 3) A reduction in the exhaust valve seat recession problem brought about by low or no lead fuels.
 4) Reduced ring and bore wear.
 5) Cleaning of the fuel system.

 These claimed attributes are for a range of related products where the emphasis changes to suit a specific requirement. For instance ACES IVís ability to clean injectors & carburetors was the subject of most of our tests, targets, as you might expect, fuel system cleaning with the other attributes as a subordinate issue. The ACES IV-P (Professional Race Formula) additive is intended to boost the power output with all the other issues subordinate to that and so on. Somewhere in the middle is ACES's most popular product, the " ACES IV Gasoline Formula" for day to day street use. One ACES IV product is designed for both older vehicles up to and including OBD-I (1997 & below Onboard Diagnostics 1) as well as vehicles for OBDII (1998 and up).

ACES IV & Power Octane

 Because of the fact they are a little different to the norm these "octane" tests will need some explaining so you know what it is you are looking at or comparing. Essentially we have two unconventional octane numbers we are dealing with.

 Our 14/1 CR motor looks at how well a fuel compares with a known high octane race fuel that can be used in the test motor at optimum spark advance (Mean Best Torque Timing).

 The reference fuel was 105 octane (R+M/2) race fuel from Daeco. At the other end of the scale we had a fuel of 90 octane that was on the point of detonation with almost no advance. A graph was made and between the two reference points a straight line drawn. In practice this method of assessing octane makes no concession to the fact that leaded fuels usually have a longer ignition delay time so it delivers conservative results. In addition to spark advance a similar graph was drawn using power as a reference.

 OK I realize that without being on the spot this all sounds like it's complicated. But once a basic understanding of the principles involved it all gets a lot clearer.

Hot Manifold Tests

 Let's start with the power and timing when the motor was fed with the Daeco 105 reference fuel. On this fuel with the hot manifold (about where most street cars are) it produced 217 HP at the fixed test rpm of 3000. The timing for best output was 31-32 degrees of advance. The best we could get from a particular pump fuel rated at 91 octane was 156 HP and 10 degrees of advance. This 91 octane fuel actually made more HP and allowed more timing than another well known and respected brand rated at 93 octane. The 91 octane fuel actually reacted as if it had slightly more octane than 91 where as the 93 reacted as if it had less.

 Our first test was with the test motor configured with a hot intake as per a typical production street motor. This test was intended to establish whether ACES IV, in a motor simulating what we drive on the street, can make the fuel react as if it has more octane value. Using 92 octane base fuel and in the heated manifold configuration were delivered. These show the test motors output was increased from 155 to 162.5 hp when the optimum (in this case) 1 ozs per 6 gallons of ACES IV was used.

 Tests were started with a small dose of ACES IV which was stepped up to, and just beyond, the point where no further power gains were seen. As can be seen from the curves Fig. 2 the best power octane increase occurred between using 1/5th of an oz per gallon and 1/6th ozs per US gallon (1.585 - 1.321 grams/litre).

 With power as a criteria results showed that one of the better 92 octane test fuels used as a reference could have it's octane value increased from 92 to a power # of 93.6 and using spark advance as a reference it went from 92 to 93. As the numbers show the ACES IV added some 7.5 hp to our test motor - a 4.8% increase.

Cold Manifold Tests

 The next tests were to establish what ACES IV would do in a motor where the air intake temperature is about that of a typical pushrod competition motor. Using the same test procedure but with a water-cooled intake the results showed ACES IV delivered a significantly greater response. The 92 octane base fuel and the 105 octane Daeco race fuel delivered 190.0 and 225.7 hp respectively. The optimum ACES IV dose in this instance proved to be less than with the "hot test" at 0.25 ozs per US gallon. At this concentration the test motors output increased from 190 HP to 215.5 hp. These figures indicate that the power octane based on power has increased from 92 to no less than 100.9 and based on spark advance from 92 to 95 octane.

 With the cooler charge the power took a substantial leap upward. The gain being an impressive 13.5%. However I should caution you that the high compression, short cammed test motor is intended to magnify power differences so do not assume your motor will make such big gains unless a correspondingly high compression is involved.

Low Compression Power Tests

 If your motor is a very high compression unit then the power increase seen could, as some users have reported, be significantly more than in the following test. However, this test is presented for two reasons. First it represents the typical increase that can be expected each and every time ACES IV is poured into the fuel tank. Second it shows what ACES IV can do for a motor when insufficient fuel octane is not an issue.
 For this particular conventional power test, the motor used was a 350 inch SB Chevy with a 9/1 CR, a short street cam and production heads. Induction was via a 650 cfm Holley on an production heated intake manifold. All this dumped through 1 5/8 inch diameter dyno cell headers. This is representative of many street motors. To establish a base line 7 pulls were made and the highest and lowest results thrown out. An average was then made of the remaining five curves. The same was then done with ACES IV in the fuel. The chart Fig 4 shows the results of a straight 'pour in' test on a 9/1 compression motor. The base fuel was 92 Octane. The treated fuel was 87 octane pump fuel with ACES IV.

 I suspect that this increase is partially from reduced piston friction and partially from the ignition enhancer that ACES IV has in all it's formulations. The result of eight tests with low compression (8.5-9.5/1) motors ranging from 52 inch (850 cc) to 468 inch (7670 cc) shows that the average gain was only less than 1% on one occasion but typically right around 1.6% and with one test as high as 3.25%. The test Fig 4 delivered an average increase of 2.7%.

Wear Tests

 The basis for ACES IV's claim of reduced valve seat recession and bore wear is based in turn on their claim that when combustion takes place part of the ACES IV formula is converted to a high grade synthetic lubricant. This appears to be the case as, when some straight ACES IV was burned it left what appeared to be a very slick oil residue. Also exhaust valve stems, previously dry, appear to have a trace of lubricant.

 The tests run to establish ACES IV's ability to reduce valve seat recession and bore/ring wear was the all time most boring test I have ever done. The fact that it involved 500 hours of dyno test time of which mostly was involved just monitoring the test motor did not help but, inescapably, that's what it took. Running the tests around the clock meant each test, with the down time for the measurements involved, took some 12 days.

 Here's how these tests were done. Two identical 4 cylinder 850 cc BL (subsequently Austin Rover and now BMW) Mini motors where built. Prior to assembly the bores of each block were accurately measured at key locations with a one ten thousandths of an inch (0.0001 inch) per scale division bore gauge. The divisions on the scale were such that we could discern 40 millionths with relative ease.

 Of these two motors one was to be run on straight Union 76 fuel and the other Union 76 with ACES IV added. A special dial indicator test stand was made up that installed on the head so the location of the tip of each valve could be measured. The plan was to stop the motor at regular intervals and establish the position of the valves. Also the motor was to be run through a cycle to represent a variety of driving conditions. These would range from relatively small throttle openings and rpm's around 2000 - 2500 up too near Wide Open Throttle (WOT) and speeds of 4000 rpm.

 After the test with the motor on un-additized fuel was finished the whole extremely boring process was repeated with the second identical motor running on ACES IV additized fuel. The bar graph Fig 5 shows how ACES IV reduced valve seat recession on the un-hardened seats of the 850 Mini motor. In essence seat recession was cut by an average of 362%.

 At the time the valve seat recession tests were done the EPA were also doing some tests of their own on other products. I compared their test results with mine. The standard which was being used at the time, was to compare an additive's effectiveness against Tetra Ethyl Lead (TEL). The best anti - recession additives the EPA tested that I was aware of were only about 10% as effective as TEL at .3 grams per gallon. Our tests indicated ACES IV was 280% better than TEL. However since I did not know the EPA's exact test procedure here comparing these numbers should be as an indicator rather than an absolute.


 ACES IV Fuel Additive - Page 3

Cylinder Bore Wear

 The time each of the 850 test motors was run for was the equivalent of some 13,000 miles. Each was used with quality synthetic oil (Mobil 1) which was changed 50 hours. All cylinders of the un-additized fuel test motor showed a typical wear pattern. This was the formation of a step were the top ring comes to a stop at the top of the stroke. This step is caused by two distinct events taking place. First as the piston slows the ring is less able to "hydroplane" over the oil film and has more time to push through the what ever film there may be this far up the bore above the oil control ring.

 The negative effect of reduced ring face to cylinder wall interface lubrication is compounded when combustion takes place. The pressure in the combustion chamber rises and as this pressure builds behind the top ring it forces the ring harder onto the bore. This brings about an even greater tendency to squeeze the oil from between the ring and the cylinder wall. As the piston gains speed down the bore so hydrodynamic lubrication once more comes into effect.

 The forgoing then explains why we see most of the bore wear at the top of the bore. If this area can be effectively lubricated then it is reasonable to suppose ring and bore life could be significantly extended. Because the combustion process causes part of the ACES IV formula to turn into a lubricant a process along the following lines is envisaged to be a mechanism by which positive results could be achieved.

 As combustion takes place so a layer of ACES IV lubricant, probably only a few hundred molecules thick, is deposited on the cylinder walls. This process continues during virtually the entire power stroke length. As the piston returns up the bore so the ring rides on either the oil film from the crank case oil or, as the top of the stroke is reached, the oil film deposited by the ACES IV. If this film can last just 2 revolutions of the motor it will be replaced at the next combustion cycle. If this successfully happens we have a mechanism that could prevent the ring from ever experiencing any real metal to metal contact with the cylinder wall.

 Well, like a lot of things this all sounds good in theory but let's see if it works out in the real world. Bearing in mind that a race motor losses more HP from ring and bore wear than from any other single factor other than a breakage or blow up I was anxious to see the state of the bores and rings of the ACES IV additized fuel motor.

Bore Measurements

 Normally now would be a good time to do a chart but in this instance there would be little point because a few words will sum up the situation. The bore wear on the ACES IV fueled motor was so small that on three of the four cylinders my 40 millionths resolving dial gauge could not measure it. Only on one cylinder was I able to measure any wear. So as to be conservative and less than fair to the ACES IV's ability to combat wear I took the least worn cylinder of the "before" test and compared it with the most worn cylinder of the 'after' test thus showing ACES IV in it's worst light. The result was that the ACES IV treated fuel cut bore wear by no less than 600% ! Similar measurements comparing the before and after change in ring gaps revealed a similarly large trend toward reduced wear. In this instance it was more practical to take an average as ring gaps change at a rate equal to the surface wear x Pi. These measurements showed ring wear to be reduced by 350%.

 Test results as positive as those seen from the bore and ring wear tests can be a little worrying. With such a vast difference involved I had to ask if there might not be other factors involved such as one block being of better cast iron then the other. If such was the case then maybe as much as half the wear reduction shown by the use of ACES IV could have been from this source. Obviously ACES IV did reduce wear but 600% seemed like a quantum step and then some. Without some corroborating evidence I was reluctant to confirm the 600% as a realistic number. This continued to be the case until Caterpillar, well respected in the industry for the standard of their testing, had even more positive results with big diesel's subjected to high load 252 hour durability test. Their tests showed an improvement from near total piston failure at the end of 252 hours to long term survival with minimal wear.

Fuel System Cleaner Test
 This group of tests was the least informal of all our tests. This was primarily the case because I got hold of some comprehensive tests done by one of the industries top fuel testing facilities, namely Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio Texas. All of their lab test results showed ACES IV to be an effective deposit remover and system cleaner. Based on this I made the decision to do both short and long term field tests on vehicles in use.

 The long term test essentially involved my 350 injected Chevy truck. Short term tests were done on a couple of acquired cars known to have dirty injectors.

 First the truck, this was run with ACES IV from the day I collected it from the dealer. Although I might miss pouring ACES IV into the tank at every fill up, the ACES IV, in much greater dilutions than recommended, was still there. So it is unlikely that until the day I sold it this motor was ever run without at least some of the wear inhibiting properties of ACES IV. As for crank case oil 98% of the time this motor had Mobil 1 or Castrol Syntec. At 2400 miles the truck was tested for output on a chassis dyno. It made a peak of 172 HP at the rear wheels. Also the compression pressures and the cylinder leak-down were tested. At 98,000 miles the truck was re-dynoed on the same dyno and returned 177 HP. The compression pressures and the leak-down, when tested showed virtually the same average figures as the test at 2400 miles. For all practical purposes this motor was still as new. An injector inspection showed these to be about as clean as the day they were installed.

 I picked up a Pontiac 6000 LE V6 that had been used almost exclusively for freeway miles only. It had seen regular oil changes at 3000 miles during it's 114,000 mile life and the motor was a gem. However the idle was far from being as smooth as one would expect from an injected V6. Before adding any ACES IV to see if it would straighten out the idle problem it was emission tested and a drive from Riverside, California to Tucson Arizona and back was made. The car failed the emission test with an out of spec idle and on it's 900-mile trip netted a little over 21 mpg.

 At this point I thought I would get the injectors clean quicker than waiting for a whole tank of fuel to go through the system so I poured 10 oz of ACES IV into a full tank of fuel. In this instance this proved to be a case of over kill. About 10 miles and five stop lights later the car was idling as smooth as it should. A few weeks later a second round trip from Riverside to Tucson and back showed mileage up to 24.9 mpg. This car, with substantially lower figures, also passed it's emission tests second time around. Similar results were seen on the other test vehicle.

Conclusions

 A point I need to make clear here is that I was for the most part, testing the ACES IVís ability to clean injectors & carburetors which is intended primarily to clean fuel systems and provide top notch upper cylinder lubrication. This it did but I feel I should mention, for the benefit of those who's priority is power output, that ACES has a Professional Race Formula version, their ACES IV-P additive. After not only my tests but also our Mopar editor Chrysler Steve's separate ( on a different dyno and Chrysler motor) tests with the ACES IV Gasoline Formula, I am anxious to test the ACES IV-P. For most of my readers I would assume that either the ACES IV (for street use) or the ACES IV-P (for competition use) would fit requirements best.

 I am pleased to say that I am not the only one to have found ACES IV beneficial. Some major fuel company's servicing large, less developed areas outside of the US, are finding it cheaper to meet road octane and emission requirements by using ACES IV concentrate in the bulk fuel instead of brewing a higher quality fuel. The findings of these other users and big company's goes a long way toward helping me feel more comfortable with my own test results.

 Since the subject of cost has been broached it is worth pointing out that at about $6.51 a tank (20 gallons) it is cheaper to use this stuff than racing fuel by a big margin. If you work out the numbers the savings in fuel costs due to increase mileage plus the savings from considerably extended motor wear life make it an extremely cost effective product to use. If it's just the improved wear and clean fuel systems that you are after I have found that the recommended amount of ACES IV can be used to maintain it quite nicely.

 For what it's worth, since I use it in all my dyno motors (which are inevitably costly units) and street vehicles I get it by the gallon with an 8 oz squeeze bottle. Although the situation may change, most speed shops do not have ACES IV so you will need to order from the manufacturer. (The contact source is at the end of the feature text.)

For a race vehicle the fact that the motor will maintain it's power because ring and valve seal will not degrade is important. For sure ACES IV has the potential to double the life of a race motor as well as make the vehicle a little faster. If your $10,000 race motor lasts twice as long between rebuilds a considerable sum of money has been saved and can be spent elsewhere (tires?). If you check out the cost of treating the fuel in terms of cents per gallon you will also find ACES IV to be about the least expensive additive on the market assuming the ones used as a comparison actually work (big assumption!).

 Even after all these tests I'm still a little gun shy when it comes to additives so I'm not making a single claim as to what ACES IV will do for your vehicle. I use it as a matter of course in all my dyno test motors but you have the results I got - so decide for yourself.


 P.S.
 I want to thank Arias for making my special pistons, Fel-Pro for gaskets and Comp Cams for grinding my one off spec cam. When I ordered this cam Scooter Brothers (Comp's technical director) said he was sure it's use would lead to detonation - how right he was! Also a special thanks to Brian Schubert for all the samples of ACES IV used in this test.

Source for purchasing ACES IV products:

 BND Automotive LLC.
 PO Box 670016
 Sagamore Hills, Ohio 44067
 440-821-9040 phone
 925-281-0181 fax
www.bndautomotive.com

ACES IV Quick Check

 Type of Additive - Fuel

 Claimed Functions: primary Injector and fuel system cleaner

 Claimed Functions: secondary Boosts power and "apparent" or power octane. Reduces cylinder bore, piston and ring wear and reduces valve seat recessions.

 Did ACES IV clean the fuel system ? YES

 Did ACES IV increase mileage ? YES

 Did ACES IV boost power ? YES - By an average of 1.6% based on test results from 8 street type low compression motors. Significantly greater increases seen in high compression motors.

 Did ACES IV increase octane effect ? YES - In our 14/1 cooled manifold test motor, the apparent octane test referenced to spark advance increased by 3 octane and referenced to power increased 9.7 octane.

 Did ACES IV cut ring and bore wear? YES - Our 500 hour tests showed bore wear was reduced by 600% minimum.

 Did ACES IV cut exhaust seat recession ? YES - Exhaust seat recession was reduced by 362%.

 Did this product generally meet the manufacturers claims ? YES

 Product Rating - 5 stars
2007 Ford Edge SEL, Powerstop F/R Brake Kit, TXT LED 6000K Lo & Hi Beams, W16W LED Reverse Bulbs, 3BSpec 2.5w Map Lights, 5W Cree rear dome lights, 5W Cree cargo light, DTBL LED Taillights

If tuned:  Take note of the strategy code as you return to stock (including 3 bar MAP to 2 bar MAP) -> take car in & get it serviced -> check strategy code when you get car back -> have tuner update your tune if the strategy code has changed -> reload tune -> ENJOY!

Offline nickstewartroc

  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Orlando, Florida
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 6
  • -Received: 95
  • Posts: 285
  • Ecobooster
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ACES IV - An effective octane booster and anti-wear additive?
« Reply #1 on: August 05, 2015, 09:24:09 AM »
Pretty neat! Going to pick some up and let us know how it goes?  8)
Current:
2013 Ruby Red Flex Limited EcoBoost, Unleashed Tuned, drop in filter

Gone but not forgotten: 2011 SHO Non-PP in Black Tuxedo Metallic - Catback, DPs, Stoptech Z23s, MDesign CAI, LMS Tune

Offline SHOdded

  • Forum Supporters
  • Elite Member
  • *
  • Beltsville, MD
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 13039
  • -Received: 4242
  • Posts: 15922
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: ACES IV - An effective octane booster and anti-wear additive?
« Reply #2 on: August 05, 2015, 09:26:38 AM »
Don't know, I might, just to try it out.  No idea on pricing yet, that's gonna determine whether or not this happens.  IIRC, 1 oz treats 6 gallons of fuel.
2007 Ford Edge SEL, Powerstop F/R Brake Kit, TXT LED 6000K Lo & Hi Beams, W16W LED Reverse Bulbs, 3BSpec 2.5w Map Lights, 5W Cree rear dome lights, 5W Cree cargo light, DTBL LED Taillights

If tuned:  Take note of the strategy code as you return to stock (including 3 bar MAP to 2 bar MAP) -> take car in & get it serviced -> check strategy code when you get car back -> have tuner update your tune if the strategy code has changed -> reload tune -> ENJOY!

Offline FoMoCoSHO

  • Super Moderator
  • Elite Member
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 705
  • -Received: 1157
  • Posts: 5120
  • The Tenth Man
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ACES IV - An effective octane booster and anti-wear additive?
« Reply #3 on: August 07, 2015, 02:18:54 AM »
Here is an interesting presentation on Aces II

http://atagencer.com/index_htm_files/ACES%20presentation.pdf

Offline FoMoCoSHO

  • Super Moderator
  • Elite Member
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 705
  • -Received: 1157
  • Posts: 5120
  • The Tenth Man
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: ACES IV - An effective octane booster and anti-wear additive?
« Reply #4 on: August 07, 2015, 02:25:11 AM »
Looks like they are engaged in the issues surrounding DI as well...

http://www.chargerforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=196890

Offline Dxlnt1

  • Elite Member
  • *
  • Los Angeles, CA
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 123
  • -Received: 137
  • Posts: 674
  • SHO-NUFF
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ACES IV - An effective octane booster and anti-wear additive?
« Reply #5 on: August 07, 2015, 05:54:52 AM »
Does LMS have any working knowledge of this stuff? If so or no, their basic stance is octane boosters do NOT work. And hence are unreliable to use for the sake of octane/performance boost. I would be interested. Seems this would raise my current 91 octane fuel in California to 98 octane. Which of of course allows more aggressive tune. I may not need the meth install if this stuff works as advertised!
2011 SHO, 3 Bar AJP Turbo-Tune, ACES IV, 170 T-stat, PPE Catted DP's, Alpine Sound system, Touch screen HVAC controls, full window tint

Offline SHOdded

  • Forum Supporters
  • Elite Member
  • *
  • Beltsville, MD
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 13039
  • -Received: 4242
  • Posts: 15922
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: ACES IV - An effective octane booster and anti-wear additive?
« Reply #6 on: August 07, 2015, 07:11:04 AM »
I think meth will still be a better overall solution, BUT this may be an acceptable compromise, especially when combined with a very low volatility engine oil like Amsoil.
2007 Ford Edge SEL, Powerstop F/R Brake Kit, TXT LED 6000K Lo & Hi Beams, W16W LED Reverse Bulbs, 3BSpec 2.5w Map Lights, 5W Cree rear dome lights, 5W Cree cargo light, DTBL LED Taillights

If tuned:  Take note of the strategy code as you return to stock (including 3 bar MAP to 2 bar MAP) -> take car in & get it serviced -> check strategy code when you get car back -> have tuner update your tune if the strategy code has changed -> reload tune -> ENJOY!

Offline Dxlnt1

  • Elite Member
  • *
  • Los Angeles, CA
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 123
  • -Received: 137
  • Posts: 674
  • SHO-NUFF
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ACES IV - An effective octane booster and anti-wear additive?
« Reply #7 on: August 07, 2015, 07:27:48 AM »
True, but as it stands the meth may void warranty. Seemingly more difficult to prove a fuel additive caused damage. Compared with a physical meth connection.

Do you think hypothetically between the 2 one's car could hit the 600 hp figure without all the extra mods from a more efficient fuel?
2011 SHO, 3 Bar AJP Turbo-Tune, ACES IV, 170 T-stat, PPE Catted DP's, Alpine Sound system, Touch screen HVAC controls, full window tint

Offline SHOdded

  • Forum Supporters
  • Elite Member
  • *
  • Beltsville, MD
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 13039
  • -Received: 4242
  • Posts: 15922
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: ACES IV - An effective octane booster and anti-wear additive?
« Reply #8 on: August 07, 2015, 07:56:41 AM »
You mean not using E85 or adding a PFI system or engine upgrades etc.?  Still having a tune, 3 bar, tstat, downpipes?  You COULD, running 100% meth and a high octane fuel, but I wouldn't vouch for its streetability with the stock drivetrain; short runs such as at the dragstrip, sure.  Expect appropriate maintenance intervals to preserve integrity.  Now, if you used a "colder" tune so for DD you'd be making no more than around 500 hp (400 awhp), then yeah, no problem.
2007 Ford Edge SEL, Powerstop F/R Brake Kit, TXT LED 6000K Lo & Hi Beams, W16W LED Reverse Bulbs, 3BSpec 2.5w Map Lights, 5W Cree rear dome lights, 5W Cree cargo light, DTBL LED Taillights

If tuned:  Take note of the strategy code as you return to stock (including 3 bar MAP to 2 bar MAP) -> take car in & get it serviced -> check strategy code when you get car back -> have tuner update your tune if the strategy code has changed -> reload tune -> ENJOY!

Offline Dxlnt1

  • Elite Member
  • *
  • Los Angeles, CA
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 123
  • -Received: 137
  • Posts: 674
  • SHO-NUFF
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ACES IV - An effective octane booster and anti-wear additive?
« Reply #9 on: August 07, 2015, 08:20:57 AM »
Yes thats exactly the setup. This all still maintaining see compression, just more timing. Seems feasivle. Then again, I'm not that smart. Maybe I missed something.

I was assuming these cars with the average DD mods already at maybe 425-450 awhp. Being able to advance more timing from that same average guy running essentially race fuel and more aggressive tune. Maybe too optimistic lol.

Incidentally I am inching closer to pulling the trigger on meth install. A shot in the dark since I haven't seen an actual install but the how to articles spell it all out pretty good.
2011 SHO, 3 Bar AJP Turbo-Tune, ACES IV, 170 T-stat, PPE Catted DP's, Alpine Sound system, Touch screen HVAC controls, full window tint

Offline SHOdded

  • Forum Supporters
  • Elite Member
  • *
  • Beltsville, MD
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 13039
  • -Received: 4242
  • Posts: 15922
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: ACES IV - An effective octane booster and anti-wear additive?
« Reply #10 on: August 07, 2015, 10:11:09 AM »
I'm sure once you do the meth install the only regret will be "Why did I wait this long???"
2007 Ford Edge SEL, Powerstop F/R Brake Kit, TXT LED 6000K Lo & Hi Beams, W16W LED Reverse Bulbs, 3BSpec 2.5w Map Lights, 5W Cree rear dome lights, 5W Cree cargo light, DTBL LED Taillights

If tuned:  Take note of the strategy code as you return to stock (including 3 bar MAP to 2 bar MAP) -> take car in & get it serviced -> check strategy code when you get car back -> have tuner update your tune if the strategy code has changed -> reload tune -> ENJOY!

Offline Dxlnt1

  • Elite Member
  • *
  • Los Angeles, CA
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 123
  • -Received: 137
  • Posts: 674
  • SHO-NUFF
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ACES IV - An effective octane booster and anti-wear additive?
« Reply #11 on: August 07, 2015, 02:59:18 PM »
Im sure you are right about that. Would still like to hear some first hand reports on this additive. This plus the meth could be more awesome!

Where do you buy this stuff from anyway> Couldn't find it available anywhere.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2015, 03:01:46 PM by Dxlnt1 »
2011 SHO, 3 Bar AJP Turbo-Tune, ACES IV, 170 T-stat, PPE Catted DP's, Alpine Sound system, Touch screen HVAC controls, full window tint

Offline ZSHO

  • Forum Supporter
  • Forum Supporters
  • Elite Member
  • *
  • *
  • New York SHO
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1945
  • -Received: 4088
  • Posts: 1982
  • Trap Speed of almost 116 mph.
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: ACES IV - An effective octane booster and anti-wear additive?
« Reply #12 on: August 07, 2015, 03:08:50 PM »
Im sure you are right about that. Would still like to hear some first hand reports on this additive. This plus the meth could be more awesome!

Where do you buy this stuff from anyway> Couldn't find it available anywhere.
I believe the phone # and address is above on the post originally from SHOdded.  Z


2013 Performance Package SHO| Livernois Custom Methanol Tune|3-Bar Map|Reische-170-Stat|Full Race Tial-10psi BOV in Black|PPE-Gloss Black Hot Pipes|EPP Dual Intake in Gloss Black|PPE Catted DP|Corsa Sport Cat Back Exhaust|H&R Sport-Springs|CFM Performance Billet Valve Cover Breather In Gloss Black|Llumar 20%Ceramic window Tint|MSD Ignition Coils in Black|Extreme Roof Spoiler|Redline Fluids all around|Gearhead Intercooler|First-SHO With Direct Port Alky-VP-M1-100%-Methanol Injection|LMS-Custom-Dyno-Tuned @ 415whp-465wtq| Best Trap Speed of 115.54 mph|

Offline SHOdded

  • Forum Supporters
  • Elite Member
  • *
  • Beltsville, MD
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 13039
  • -Received: 4242
  • Posts: 15922
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: ACES IV - An effective octane booster and anti-wear additive?
« Reply #13 on: August 07, 2015, 04:35:33 PM »
Source for purchasing ACES IV products:

 BND Automotive LLC.
 PO Box 670016
 Sagamore Hills, Ohio 44067
 440-821-9040 phone
 925-281-0181 fax
www.bndautomotive.com
2007 Ford Edge SEL, Powerstop F/R Brake Kit, TXT LED 6000K Lo & Hi Beams, W16W LED Reverse Bulbs, 3BSpec 2.5w Map Lights, 5W Cree rear dome lights, 5W Cree cargo light, DTBL LED Taillights

If tuned:  Take note of the strategy code as you return to stock (including 3 bar MAP to 2 bar MAP) -> take car in & get it serviced -> check strategy code when you get car back -> have tuner update your tune if the strategy code has changed -> reload tune -> ENJOY!

Offline FoMoCoSHO

  • Super Moderator
  • Elite Member
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 705
  • -Received: 1157
  • Posts: 5120
  • The Tenth Man
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 1

 

* Recent Topics

Re: 2014 MKS ignition coils?
by avidmotion | April 16, 2021, 10:00:37 AM
I like MSD, smoothed out idle and got rid of a slight studder mid thro...
Re: Just another new old guy.
by H82bbad | April 16, 2021, 08:02:44 AM
Well if your askin youíre one of us 😂😂 Iím only 55. &#...
Re: What have you done to your Ecoboosted vehicle today?
by wraitherx | April 15, 2021, 05:49:33 PM
Put the summer wheels back on Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk...
What's New at RockAuto
by RockAuto | April 15, 2021, 02:23:35 PM
There's something for everyone!  From luxury all-weather flo...
Re: bpd1151's 2010 SHO Rebuild Thread....
by bpd1151 | April 15, 2021, 12:42:44 PM
04/15/2021......Welp.... having had some time to process and put behin...
Re: Tracking an oil leak
by djshew12 | April 15, 2021, 10:14:11 AM
This final post is for posterity.It was indeed a bad oil pressure send...
Re: Picked up an 18 Navigator
by 4DRHTRD | April 14, 2021, 05:09:06 PM
Did some updates to the Navi, she got some damage and had to have the ...
Re: Did some updates on the Ecopowerparts shop truck
by Macgyver | April 12, 2021, 09:40:09 PM
Oh sick stuff right there....
Re: Trans "leak" from vent in fill cap
by Cobra93 | April 12, 2021, 04:54:01 PM
I found a replacement dipstick/cap for $11.52. I think I'll try t...
Re: Another CO XSport
by Macgyver | April 10, 2021, 09:09:29 PM
Welcome and thanks for posting  pics of the Ecoboost....

SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal