ACES IV - An effective octane booster and anti-wear additive?

[BND 370 Hemi]

Has anyone tried it yet, where can it be purchased

Several people are in the process of ordering our materials from this SHO forum but over 10,000 people use our ACES IV and our QuantumBlue materials every day. 

Purchasing is via telephone at 440-821-9040.  We spend a few minutes with each customer to verify we can assist them and then we take all the pertinent information from them, design what they need and then manufacture it...finally shipping it to your door via FedEx Ground or UPS.

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com

[92BlackGT]

I look forward to seeing the results of ACES IV.
I'm curious if your lubricants would be beneficial in our PTU (Power Transfer Unit)? It seems the factory 'lifetime' fill turns to sludge and I'm hoping your QuantumBlue product would be a good alternative for an extended use lubricant. Do you have any info on how well your product handles the high heat and abuse of our PTU?
Any info I appreciated!

[SHOdded]

Brian, which filter was used in Jack's F150?   I see that the extended interval oil changes show a limit being reached somewhere around 15,000 miles, though  only 1 data point, as Si goes up to 50 ppm from 30+.  At all intervals, Fe goes up quite a bit as well, why? (though all the other metal wears look good).  I don't imagine your products contain ferrous compounds, so where is it coming from, in your experience?

Here is a link to sample reports from Blackstone (tho non-turbo), which probably everyone is familiar with:
http://www.blackstone-labs.com/report-explanation.php

The F150 3.5EB has a somewhat different construction than the SHO 3.5EB.  Supposedly it has forged crank & connecting rods, whereas the SHO's counterparts are powdered metal.  So I hope we can get a history over time with the SHO's 3.5EB results with your products as well.

[BND 370 Hemi]

I look forward to seeing the results of ACES IV.

I am looking forward to hearing back from people here....although we have several 3.5L Ecoboost cars and trucks that have been running on ACES IV for a few years now. 

Here is an example from a 598 Chevy Big Block comparing $9.86 per gallon VP-110 racing fuel:



and 91 by itself:



91 + ACES IV.  11 to 1 compression ratio and 170 psi cold cranking cylinder pressure:




I'm curious if your lubricants would be beneficial in our PTU (Power Transfer Unit)? It seems the factory 'lifetime' fill turns to sludge and I'm hoping your QuantumBlue product would be a good alternative for an extended use lubricant. Do you have any info on how well your product handles the high heat and abuse of our PTU?

I reviewed the spec on the PTU and I come up with this:

Use SAE 75W-140 synthetic rear axle lubricant. Motorcraft P/N XY-75W140-QL; Ford specification WSL-M2C192-A

This viscosity is too wide and the typical synthethic lubricants are too thin.  We have had experience with all kinds of 4wd and all wheel drive vehicles.  We HAVE TO put very high temperature compounds in our fluids for these units because they really are not designed for durability.  Ford has had a history of burning up these PTUs.  We got involved in adjusting them since our first Explorer Sport Trak from 2001.  We have produced a lubricant that exceeds API GL-5, SAE J2360, MT-1, MIL-PRF-21050E and MACK GO-J specifications.  Ford engineers look at these units with a cost savings in mind just like GM and Chrysler.  We in the aftermarket have to reengineer as best we can to address these mindsets.   QB 85w125 HP Tackified RED Differential Fluid.  Similar to what we do in funny cars and rail dragsters with 8,000 hp.  Bulletproof engineering here.

Any info I appreciated!

Looking forward to working with you when you are ready!

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com

[BND 370 Hemi]

Brian, which filter was used in Jack's F150?

The oil filter was a QuantumBlue Ultra HP Oil Filter of our own design. 

Here is a dissertation on our filters:



I see that the extended interval oil changes show a limit being reached somewhere around 15,000 miles, though  only 1 data point, as Si goes up to 50 ppm from 30+.

Jack has a performance filter on the truck and I have told him to use a regular air filter as he drives in dusty areas.  However, if you look at the 50 ppm and div it by 16.4 you get 3.048 ppm per 1000 miles.  When it was at 7,985 it was at 34 ppm.  34 div by 7.98 = 4.26 ppm per 1000 miles.  Granted, I don't like silicone and I have told him about it. 

At all intervals, Fe goes up quite a bit as well, why? (though all the other metal wears look good).  I don't imagine your products contain ferrous compounds, so where is it coming from, in your experience?

When you look at the iron content at 68 ppm...which is well within the limits for a 3,000 mile oil change.....you have to div it.  68 ppm div by 16.4 = 4.14 ppm per 1000 miles.  This is coming from the bore.  If you look at the 14,386 change and 46 you end up with 3.19 so it has gone up.  I generally like to see about 15k like you stated but he was towing and couldn't get back until this mileage. 

Here is an example of all the breakdown on an oil analysis:



Here is a link to sample reports from Blackstone (tho non-turbo), which probably everyone is familiar with:
http://www.blackstone-labs.com/report-explanation.php

Taking the example you posted from the 3,700 mile Motorcraft oil we have the following:

40 iron (bores) - 40 div by 3.7 = 10.81 ppm per 1000 and we were at 4.14 per 1000 @ 16,328 which is 4.41 times longer between oil changes!

Chromium (rings) was at 2 ppm at 3,700 miles or 54/100ths of 1 ppm per 1000 miles where the QB sample shows 2 ppm at 16,328 or 12/100ths of 1 ppm per 1000 miles and 4.41 times longer between oil changes.

Lead (bearings) was 2 ppm at 3,700 miles or 54/100ths of 1 ppm per 1000 miles.  The QuantumBlue had 0 ppm so no bearing wear at all with 4.41 times longer between oil changes.

Nickel (valves) was 1 ppm at 3,700 miles or 27/100ths of 1 ppm per 1000 miles and the QB sample also had 1 meaning that it had 6/100ths of 1 ppm per 1000 miles and 4.41 times longer between oil changes. 

These are the comparisons just off the surface but it does show how well our QB Custom Blends do in these engines. 

Aluminum (piston skirt) on the 3,700 mile sample was 11 ppm or 2.97 ppm per 1000 miles where the QB sample was 8 ppm or 49/100ths of 1 ppm per 1000 miles and 4.41 times longer between oil changes.

The F150 3.5EB has a somewhat different construction than the SHO 3.5EB.  Supposedly it has forged crank & connecting rods, whereas the SHO's counterparts are powdered metal.

The forged crank and connecting rods compared to a cast crank and powdered metal rods really don't matter here as it is surface wear and scuffing that we are concerned about.  The forgings are only relevant in the amount of power they can handle.  A cast crank and powdered metal rods can still handle a significant amount of power as the powdered metal rods are still pressed or forged to near net anyway and then the break off the caps on the bottom to set in the sleeve bearings.  We are more concerned about not causing surface wear and friction....although you do want a certain coefficient of friction between the metal parts with the lubricants so that the roller bearings spin and not slide.  When that happens you end up with flat spots on the components and eventually component failure. We want to guard against that for sure!


So I hope we can get a history over time with the SHO's 3.5EB results with your products as well.

Yes, I believe we can do this on the different cars and compile fresh data on how these engines respond to our materials...both ACES IV and QuantumBlue Lubricants!

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com

[Dxlnt1]

Has anyone been able speak with LMS, L.E.T. and/or Unleashed and get their input? Would be awesome for if THE ecoboost tuners had something to say on this topic as well.

Since fuel delivery one of the biggest hinderances with these engine platform, a better fuel with more timing has to mean more power right? And IF that holds true, some of our cravings for more power can be addressed seemingly. If all of our tunes can be made to say run on an equivalent 96 octane fuel, that would seemingly add 10-25 hp? Im guessing but my 91 octane tune vs some you guys 93 octane fuel is yielding almost half second better track times and higher trap speeds.

[AJP turbo]

Dx are u running 12.0-12.2?

[J-Will]

Has anyone been able speak with LMS, L.E.T. and/or Unleashed and get their input? Would be awesome for if THE ecoboost tuners had something to say on this topic as well.

Since fuel delivery one of the biggest hinderances with these engine platform, a better fuel with more timing has to mean more power right? And IF that holds true, some of our cravings for more power can be addressed seemingly. If all of our tunes can be made to say run on an equivalent 96 octane fuel, that would seemingly add 10-25 hp? Im guessing but my 91 octane tune vs some you guys 93 octane fuel is yielding almost half second better track times and higher trap speeds.

I think the best case scenario, after reading 6 pages (and truly understanding a smaller portion of the big picture BND is very carefully laying out) is that this could take the place of meth.  Therefore, I doubt the tunes will be improved using any of the boosters (BND, is 'booster' the correct term since you explicitly stated ACES IV is not considered an additive).  Let me be clear- my opinion at this point is that the best we are looking at is a choice between installing a meth kit, or using ACES IV booster.  As far as tunes go, I would assume they would be the same as a typical meth setup. 

If this is the case, I think this is a pretty fantastic scenario.  The difference (I think) would be that you must use the booster at every fillup, where meth usage could be controlled.

BND- Thank you for joining the site.  This product went from snakeoil that I disregarded when the post was originally made, to a set of products I am keeping on my radar.  You have piece-mailed throughout your posts what you would recommend for our cars, which is great info.  Could you flat out spell it out in one post that we can reference to better make a decision?     

[Dxlnt1]

Dx are u running 12.0-12.2?

No. My last time at the track was before the 4plus tune was available. So I had regular stage 4, 91 octane and I ran hi 12's and mid 13's. Maybe its time for another run.

[Dxlnt1]

Has anyone been able speak with LMS, L.E.T. and/or Unleashed and get their input? Would be awesome for if THE ecoboost tuners had something to say on this topic as well.

Since fuel delivery one of the biggest hinderances with these engine platform, a better fuel with more timing has to mean more power right? And IF that holds true, some of our cravings for more power can be addressed seemingly. If all of our tunes can be made to say run on an equivalent 96 octane fuel, that would seemingly add 10-25 hp? Im guessing but my 91 octane tune vs some you guys 93 octane fuel is yielding almost half second better track times and higher trap speeds.

I think the best case scenario, after reading 6 pages (and truly understanding a smaller portion of the big picture BND is very carefully laying out) is that this could take the place of meth.  Therefore, I doubt the tunes will be improved using any of the boosters (BND, is 'booster' the correct term since you explicitly stated ACES IV is not considered an additive).  Let me be clear- my opinion at this point is that the best we are looking at is a choice between installing a meth kit, or using ACES IV booster.  As far as tunes go, I would assume they would be the same as a typical meth setup. 

If this is the case, I think this is a pretty fantastic scenario.  The difference (I think) would be that you must use the booster at every fillup, where meth usage could be controlled.

BND- Thank you for joining the site.  This product went from snakeoil that I disregarded when the post was originally made, to a set of products I am keeping on my radar.  You have piece-mailed throughout your posts what you would recommend for our cars, which is great info.  Could you flat out spell it out in one post that we can reference to better make a decision?   

I certainly for those of us (me) with a certain reluctance to install meth for any given reason, this could certainly be an alternative. But the meth seemingly able to produce more power since the tuners are already accustomed to and working it.

Which is why I ask for their (tuners) input here. Maybe both can be had to match a hellcat power output with good tuning? I think the tune alone nets 70 hp on 93 octane. But if the ACES can be ran and tuned and our cars able to squeeze additional 20-50 hp, I would be estatic.

[AJP turbo]

Dx are u running 12.0-12.2?

No. My last time at the track was before the 4plus tune was available. So I had regular stage 4, 91 octane and I ran hi 12's and mid 13's. Maybe its time for another run.

Ok, I was just confused on where you were coming up with running .5 second better with higher traps...You talking for your 3 bar tune? I can't remember if you have a 3 bar

[FoMoCoSHO]

I will soon be in possession of some ACES IV , ACES IV-P, and Quantum Blue.

Just in time for the tuning/datalog process on the new BBG.

[SHOdded]

Will be an interesting evolution to watch, FoMoCo!  Mid 12's or better without going to eth/meth would be nice

[BigPelo]

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com

Hello Brian,

You answered my e-mail on Saturday August 15th. You asked my address in Canada to quote the shipping. I replied Monday August 17th but since I haven't heard back your proposition. I will send you a private message, I really want to try your products.

[Dxlnt1]

Dx are u running 12.0-12.2?

No. My last time at the track was before the 4plus tune was available. So I had regular stage 4, 91 octane and I ran hi 12's and mid 13's. Maybe its time for another run.

Ok, I was just confused on where you were coming up with running .5 second better with higher traps...You talking for your 3 bar tune? I can't remember if you have a 3 bar

I think I still only had the 2 bar tune at the time as well. So for my past times, I should see a full second better than the last time I was at the track. Even without the ACES IV.

This I think was my best time. But I also had transmission problems. As the tranny blew up on the way somewhere between getting to the track and getting home.




I think this was after repairs were made but still running the 2 bar  stage 4 tune

I will soon be in possession of some ACES IV , ACES IV-P, and Quantum Blue.

Just in time for the tuning/datalog process on the new BBG.

I am waiting for my invoice. Brian and I had a nice long talk the other day. Will be using the ACES IV and coolant on my Yukon since I am at 100k miles, I have 600 mile each way trip coming up in couple weeks. So I should see some incremental improvements along the way. If I pick up a solid 2-3 mpg Im all in. Cuz the 10 mpg I get in it now hurts at 4.19 per gallon for the cheap stuff.