Ecoboost Performance Forum

Basic info on their products:
http://bndautomotive.com/aces-formulas/ (http://bndautomotive.com/aces-formulas/)

An overview/results of use article:

Testing notes about ACES IV not posted before! (http://www.chargerforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156092)
 
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 IV's 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 IV's 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 (http://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

Pretty neat! Going to pick some up and let us know how it goes?  8)

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.

Here is an interesting presentation on Aces II

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

Looks like they are engaged in the issues surrounding DI as well...

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

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!

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.

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?

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.

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.

I'm sure once you do the meth install the only regret will be "Why did I wait this long???"

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.

Quote from: Dxlnt1 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.

I believe the phone # and address is above on the post originally from SHOdded.  Z

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 (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

http://www.aces-worldwide.com/Goddard%20Space%20Flight%20Center.pdf (http://www.aces-worldwide.com/Goddard%20Space%20Flight%20Center.pdf)

This place is basically in my back yard. I'll have to go check it out.

This is Bryan form BND's photobucket.

It is an interesting mishmash of random car pics and ACES data.

http://s705.photobucket.com/user/370Hemi/media/Table492octanevs87wACESIV.jpg.html (http://s705.photobucket.com/user/370Hemi/media/Table492octanevs87wACESIV.jpg.html)

Great find, FoMoCoSHO, has a lot of the info we are always looking for :)

http://www.chargerforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101392&highlight=power+gasoline (http://www.chargerforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101392&highlight=power+gasoline)

Looks like the definitive thread....

Spoke with the owner of BND today, Brian. Very informative, enlightening perspective. He gave some basic examples and theories of how other additives miss the mark so to speak.

I think if we could have either LMS or Unleashed test with their tunes to verify IF and HOW aggressive a tune could be had by using the additive. And/or just enjoy the cost savings of using 87 octane fuel that burns as well as if not better than 93 octane fuel. That's at least >20 cents per gallon here in the golden state.

I invited him to join and to come onto this and the other forum and that there was an audience here looking into his products. I will be speaking with him again in the coming days while I decide if I will be the guinea pig. But as I recall, he spoke on a ecoboost engine using his products. Don't recall which car but he said a 2.7L and 3.5L motors.

He pointed me to Audi RS6 forum. (http://www.audiworld.com/forums/a4-b8-platform-discussion-128/100-octane-2806628/ (http://www.audiworld.com/forums/a4-b8-platform-discussion-128/100-octane-2806628/)) and this is quote from a member there......

"A number of us from the rs6.com board have been using ACES IV from BND Automotive in our chipped RS6s. WIth 91 or 92 octane pump gas, and ACES IV added, the 100 octane APR tune runs fine, without any knock, but with one heck of a kick. I thought the stuff was snake oil when I first heard of it, but many on the board run it routinely. I've gone through about a gallon and a half of it (add 1 ounce to each 6 gallons of gas) and run the 100 octane tune full time. I'm in California where pump premium is about $4.25 and 100 octane close to $7/gallon. We recently added an APR tuned 2009 A4 to the family stable, running it full time with ACES IV as well. With pretty extensive searching I've found no downside to it, and search the RS6,com board if you want to dig into more comments. Brian at BND will give you the scoop. And no, I have NO financial interest whatsoever in it; just like to see others enjoy their Audi as much as I! "

But each potential customer has to "qualify" by speaking with him first. Weed out those looking to optimize performance vs those looking for something repair whats already broken and expect a wonder sauce to fix all things broken. NOT!

Suggest for meth heads, only run 100% due to corrosive nature of methanol. Has catalysts to insert into meth tank that will add lubricity components and anti corrosion properties.

Short discussion on his oil and coolants. I am a little gray on some of what he said, so that will be part of my follow up discussion. So don't ask me anything on that.

At least here, in Maryland, you don't get all the "primo" detergent stuff in 87 octane gasoline, you HAVE to buy 93 octane (premium).  The price difference is easily 45-50 cents per gallon.  So for those of us running 87, this product would definitely be worth looking at.

Any idea if the DI engines can get the valves cleaned up over time, or do you have to start with clean to stay clean?

Quote from: SHOdded on August 13, 2015, 06:22:08 AM
At least here, in Maryland, you don't get all the "primo" detergent stuff in 87 octane gasoline, you HAVE to buy 93 octane (premium).  The price difference is easily 45-50 cents per gallon.  So for those of us running 87, this product would definitely be worth looking at.

Any idea if the DI engines can get the valves cleaned up over time, or do you have to start with clean to stay clean?

The detergent affect was one of the things he advertises. Says for my car with 60k miles, maybe 3 tank fulls to clean everything out. Then be able to see the full potential power gains and efficiency from the additive.

You know, I'm not a chemist. But, I'd really like to see some serious data about the composition of this stuff.

I mean, there's a ton of additives out there to enhance octane, and by more reputable sources than just STP at AutoZone. I know this stuff isn't octane specific...but, the Audi forum is making claims that it's actively enhancing fuel octane by possibly 9 points, allowing them to run a 100 tune on 91 PON. That's simply unheard of. If such a possibility existed, refiners would be spending way fewer resources refining fuel to upper tier grades, and would just be squirting in some of this unicorn jizz into their fuels to meet octane standards. Kind of like they're doing now with ethanol. They're like, well if the government is going to mandate ethanol as an oxygenate, we're not going to give away octane by refining blendstocks to 93 and then just further enhancing with ethanol blending. Unless of course it is comprised with chemicals that aren't approved for use by the government or something.

If you search the web, even some of the most acclaimed boosters out there don't enhance better than a few points. Afterall, the quality of fuel, including octane, lies in its molecular structure. Additives are used predominantly for detergent qualities.

But, there appears to be data out there which supports the manufacturer's claims. So...not sure how to argue with that.

But, even unicorn jizz can't overcome the mechanical limitations which are inherent to GDI design, with regards to carbon deposits. However, I'm ignorant to what precautions ford has taken with their newer revisions/GDI technology, as it is possible to mitigate the issue with injector timing events and valve overlapping and such.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Definitely worth asking Torrie about, and if one is brave enough, be a testbed to gather data on the product.

Quote from: IHeartGroceries on August 13, 2015, 01:03:18 PM
You know, I'm not a chemist. But, I'd really like to see some serious data about the composition of this stuff.

I mean, there's a ton of additives out there to enhance octane, and by more reputable sources than just STP at AutoZone. I know this stuff isn't octane specific...but, the Audi forum is making claims that it's actively enhancing fuel octane by possibly 9 points, allowing them to run a 100 tune on 91 PON. That's simply unheard of. If such a possibility existed, refiners would be spending way fewer resources refining fuel to upper tier grades, and would just be squirting in some of this unicorn jizz into their fuels to meet octane standards. Kind of like they're doing now with ethanol. They're like, well if the government is going to mandate ethanol as an oxygenate, we're not going to give away octane by refining blendstocks to 93 and then just further enhancing with ethanol blending. Unless of course it is comprised with chemicals that aren't approved for use by the government or something.

If you search the web, even some of the most acclaimed boosters out there don't enhance better than a few points. Afterall, the quality of fuel, including octane, lies in its molecular structure. Additives are used predominantly for detergent qualities.

But, there appears to be data out there which supports the manufacturer's claims. So...not sure how to argue with that.

But, even unicorn jizz can't overcome the mechanical limitations which are inherent to GDI design, with regards to carbon deposits. However, I'm ignorant to what precautions ford has taken with their newer revisions/GDI technology, as it is possible to mitigate the issue with injector timing events and valve overlapping and such.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

On the website BND does claim cleaning or at least reduced deposits on the intake valves of GDI... I'm sure it is proprietary if true, but I'd like to hear the chemistry also.

You wont get it, they have Federal Trade protection from Uncle Sam.

I've spent a ton of time researching this stuff and I believe it may be the real deal.

Apparently there about 10k people in the Charger forums using it.

I'm gonna order some and test it, oil and fuel cleaner.

Getting that kind of octane boost without having to take a fuel volume hit would be fantastic.

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 13, 2015, 02:55:52 PM
You wont get it, they have Federal Trade protection from Uncle Sam.

I've spent a ton of time researching this stuff and I believe it may be the real deal.

Apparently there about 10k people in the Charger forums using it.

I'm gonna order some and test it, oil and fuel cleaner.

Getting that kind of octane boost without having to take a fuel volume hit would be fantastic.

I'll be very interested in your results... I'm hoping it is the real deal.  The cost would be negligible if it performs half of what the claims say and does no damage or affect turbo longevity.

I would highly suggest spending some time in his vendor section on the charger forums.

He has converted some skeptics for sure....

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 13, 2015, 03:30:34 PM
I would highly suggest spending some time in his vendor section on the charger forums.

He has converted some skeptics for sure....

I'll check it out!

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 13, 2015, 02:55:52 PM
You wont get it, they have Federal Trade protection from Uncle Sam.

I've spent a ton of time researching this stuff and I believe it may be the real deal.

Apparently there about 10k people in the Charger forums using it.

I'm gonna order some and test it, oil and fuel cleaner.

Getting that kind of octane boost without having to take a fuel volume hit would be fantastic.

If you the learned octane gauge in torque, maybe monitor that to see if car-puter notices a change. And if anyone close to Torrie or LMS, and/or can do datalogging would stupndous. (only big word I know).

I will probably order next week. My LOR in torque is non responsive. So I will only have the booty touch, taste, feel to "know" if its working. And my cars economy. I track mileage logs for every fill up so that will be easy.

Brian did say for the first few tanks you run expect to see "soot" out of tail pipes. This is normal and evidence of cleaning. He didnt say how much soot or smoke if any.

DX, you talked to Bryan already?

 I'm ready to drain the break in oil in 300 miles and start the tuning/datalog process so the timing couldn't be better.

DX, take out that space after SIGNED in the LOR equation (as Rich pointed out), it should work then.  Even so, remember, it IS a RATIO, not an absolute number, so the way to see what it does is to see how fast it goes to -1 each time you add the ACES IV at fillup time, say with 87 gas, while updating the tune itself (87 then 91 then 93 & so on).  no need to say that datalogging is absolutely critical to determine remaining headroom and avoid limphome mode.

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 13, 2015, 03:47:18 PM
DX, you talked to Bryan already?

We spoke for a bit yesterday. I encouraged and invited him to come over the forum to answer questions for a very interested crowd. He didn't commit but said he has worked a few ecoboost engines.

Quote from: SHOdded on August 13, 2015, 05:24:53 PM
DX, take out that space after SIGNED in the LOR equation (as Rich pointed out), it should work then.  Even so, remember, it IS a RATIO, not an absolute number, so the way to see what it does is to see how fast it goes to -1 each time you add the ACES IV at fillup time, say with 87 gas, while updating the tune itself (87 then 91 then 93 & so on).  no need to say that datalogging is absolutely critical to determine remaining headroom and avoid limphome mode.

I corrected the LOR formula and it is working now. I did think and maybe hope it would be an actual octane number. I may play with formula a bit to see if it changes. Or has someone already tried that.

Im still no go on the AWD status or modulation.

Quote from: Dxlnt1 on August 13, 2015, 06:40:40 PM

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 13, 2015, 03:47:18 PM
DX, you talked to Bryan already?

We spoke for a bit yesterday. I encouraged and invited him to come over the forum to answer questions for a very interested crowd. He didn't commit but said he has worked a few ecoboost engines.

We spoke for about 45 minutes tonight.

He will be joining us after I send him some contact info this evening.

I will be moving forward once he's done his necessary research about our platform.

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 13, 2015, 07:26:08 PM

Quote from: Dxlnt1 on August 13, 2015, 06:40:40 PM

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 13, 2015, 03:47:18 PM
DX, you talked to Bryan already?

We spoke for a bit yesterday. I encouraged and invited him to come over the forum to answer questions for a very interested crowd. He didn't commit but said he has worked a few ecoboost engines.

We spoke for about 45 minutes tonight.

He will be joining us after I send him some contact info this evening.

I will be moving forward once he's done his necessary research about our platform.

Awesome. I will be buying too some time next week. If you are running meth, ask about his catalysts for meth users.

Quote from: Dxlnt1 on August 13, 2015, 09:37:53 PM

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 13, 2015, 07:26:08 PM

Quote from: Dxlnt1 on August 13, 2015, 06:40:40 PM

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 13, 2015, 03:47:18 PM
DX, you talked to Bryan already?

We spoke for a bit yesterday. I encouraged and invited him to come over the forum to answer questions for a very interested crowd. He didn't commit but said he has worked a few ecoboost engines.

We spoke for about 45 minutes tonight.

He will be joining us after I send him some contact info this evening.

I will be moving forward once he's done his necessary research about our platform.

Awesome. I will be buying too some time next week. If you are running meth, ask about his catalysts for meth users.

I would prefer to attain my goals without meth, I'm hoping Brian can assist me with that.

This would be awesome. 100 octane tune would be great :)

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

I suspect the "100" octane would be for street use, maybe even for dragstrip, but nothing that requires more continuous operation in that range.  Continuous operation is where the real thing is required.

I am interested in the entire range of offerings BND has to offer, but would like to evaluate/research each product's reported data ceteris paribus.

Quote from: SHOdded on August 13, 2015, 10:21:14 PM
I suspect the "100" octane would be for street use, maybe even for dragstrip, but nothing that requires more continuous operation in that range.  Continuous operation is where the real thing is required.

I am interested in the entire range of offerings BND has to offer, but would like to evaluate/research each product's reported data ceteris paribus.

With Torrie's assistance, I'm going to throw everything I can at it.... >:D

Quote from: SHOdded on August 13, 2015, 10:21:14 PM
I suspect the "100" octane would be for street use, maybe even for dragstrip, but nothing that requires more continuous operation in that range.  Continuous operation is where the real thing is required.

I am interested in the entire range of offerings BND has to offer, but would like to evaluate/research each product's reported data ceteris paribus.

Call him, you won't be disappointed.

We spent 45 minutes on the phone this evening talking about cars and lubricants.

You, sir, are possessed!

Good idea to involve a proven tuner... I'm really interested in this stuff, but "octane effect" as on the website is almost certainly a bit different than octane rating (ie, the RMS method we see on the pumps).

Quote from: BiGMaC on August 13, 2015, 10:55:27 PM
Good idea to involve a proven tuner... I'm really interested in this stuff, but "octane effect" as on the website is almost certainly a bit different than octane rating (ie, the RMS method we see on the pumps).

As is E-85's "effective octane" of 160 when direct injected.....

But if the end result is the same?

Ethanol is widely studied & available fuel.  ACES IV is not intended to BE a fuel but to ASSIST combustion, from what I understand (and hope Brian will discuss at length when he joins), and is a multifaceted proprietary substance.  So we need to know the conditions under which the "effective octane" holds for ACES IV.

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 13, 2015, 10:27:55 PM

Quote from: SHOdded on August 13, 2015, 10:21:14 PM
I suspect the "100" octane would be for street use, maybe even for dragstrip, but nothing that requires more continuous operation in that range.  Continuous operation is where the real thing is required.

I am interested in the entire range of offerings BND has to offer, but would like to evaluate/research each product's reported data ceteris paribus.

With Torrie's assistance, I'm going to throw everything I can at it.... >:D

I concur. As I would love to have meth. But my guess is with my simple bolt ons and 4 plus 91 octane tune, my car "should" be at 405-425 awhp. With the ACES IV, and a modified 4X 93 octane tune, "could" be able to get to 450 awhp, without meth.

LMS appears to be more conservative from what I have experienced and read about them. Until they do their own research in their own time. Torrie and unleashed appears more willing to test and tune whatever is available. So biggest question becomes reliability and durability it seems to me.

 e-85 behaves like it is on steroids when direct injected, I wonder if there is an enhanced effect with ACES as well....

Hi everyone,

I own BND Automotive LLC and am the manufacturer of all the ACES and QuantumBlue Materials.  I was asked to come on here and discuss what we do and how our products can benefit your SHO vehicles.  We have worked with the 3.5L Twin Turbo in the Ford F150 trucks and have performed many oil analysis on them using ACES IV and QuantumBlue. 

I look forward to answering any questions any of you might have concerning our technologies.

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com) 

Welcome to the forum!

Welcome to EBPF, Brian, very glad to see you here :thumb:

Quote from: BND 370 Hemi on August 14, 2015, 11:20:39 AM
Hi everyone,

I own BND Automotive LLC and am the manufacturer of all the ACES and QuantumBlue Materials.  I was asked to come on here and discuss what we do and how our products can benefit your SHO vehicles.  We have worked with the 3.5L Twin Turbo in the Ford F150 trucks and have performed many oil analysis on them using ACES IV and QuantumBlue. 

I look forward to answering any questions any of you might have concerning our technologies.

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

Welcome aboard Bryan. Im David we spoke couple days ago. I believe this topic has a some of questions listed throughout that some had. Maybe peruse through If you havent already done so.

Welcome again.

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 14, 2015, 11:29:30 AM
Welcome to the forum!

Thank you!  Really enjoyed our discussion last night!  Thank you for welcoming me to the forums!

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

Quote from: Dxlnt1 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.

I don't believe at this point that Livernois knows much if anything about ACES IV at this time.  I will have to contact them and discuss with them the technology.  Is there someone there that is the GURU for them on tunes etc?  Let me know.

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!

The ACES IV works on a principle of BTU Utilization with Pressure Wave Dynamics.  In short, it doesn't raise CFR Octane (Research Method + Motor Method/2= Octane)   Remember that neither of these methods actually burn the fuel as it is used in a CFR (Coordinated Fuel Research)  knock motor.  They use 92% iso-octane and 8% N Heptane to come up with their 100% or 100 octane.

We use the available potential energy in the fuel and extract more of the fuel as work and less of the fuel as heat so that the post exhaust charge is cooler....reducing the need for higher octane while we release lubricity from the heat of combustion to cool down the cylinders, lubricate the rings , valve stems, guides, valve seats and faces.   

It will work well with your CARB fuels there in California.  We have thousands of customers on it with all types of performance equipment in CA.

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

Since these are turbo motors, would like to know how much of a temperature drop are we looking at?  Will the combustion byproducts help lubricate turbo bearings as well?

Quote from: SHOdded 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.

Remember that Methanol is very corrosive and is still hygroscopic in nature and not really good for any production engine.  If you do want to still run the Methanol, put some ACES IV-A in it as it will stop the corrosion, create lubricity in the cylinders when you spray it and stabilize it so it doesn't absorb water!

Amsoil is lower in volatility but relative to most of the PAO based oils available on the market. 

We have address the methanol spraying cars with a high concentration of magnesium for detergency, a 1.5% to 3% reactive volatility compared to typical 14.2% reactive synthetics and put a good supply of ZnDDP zinc and neutral phosphorous in our QuantumBlue Custom Blends.  Add ACES IV in the gasoline and you have a real change on performance.

Heat on any turbocharged car is a real problem so we address it with ACES IV, QuantumBlue Lubricants and QuantumBlue HP Gold Coolants.  A lot of turbo and supercharged racers use these in synergy.

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com) 

In the wintertime, those of us blessed enough to be in the salt belt might use products like HEET that contain methanol.  Do you recommend adding ACES IV or ACES IV-A to the gas tank at that time?

Quote from: SHOdded on August 14, 2015, 04:04:32 PM
Since these are turbo motors, would like to know how much of a temperature drop are we looking at?

With all the turbo cars we have worked on, we typically see reductions of exhaust temperatures in the 20 to 30 degree range.  The only reason you see a reduction is because the energy utilization factor is increased.  Remember conservation of energy.  E=Q+W.  Total Energy = the Quotient of Expended Heat + the Appreciable Work.  This is an illustration not fact here: So if $100 worth of gasoline =
$40 heat + $60 work....as an example.  If we can increase the amount of work to say $65 or $70 that means that the work output or hp/torque is increased with the corresponding heat being $35 or $30.  This is enough to make the fuel act like higher octane fuel..hence the octane effect we have discussed before. 

Will the combustion byproducts help lubricate turbo bearings as well?

Turbo bearings are sealed within the center housing.  What you will see though is the byproduct of burning our technology will put a thin film of lubricity on the exhaust side and give you protection from wind wear and corrosion from methanol or any other corrosive acids! 

The center bearings on the Ecoboost is water cooled and lubricated with oil.  So it is a air to air, air to oil and water protected too. 

We would address the center bearings with a QuantumBlue Custom Blended Lubricant.  Remember those exhaust housings get 1650 degrees F and the ability for the water to produce thermal inversion and a siphoning effect to bring in cooler water and evacuate hotter water to get the center down to an acceptable temperature so that the oil doesn't turn to abrasive ash.   Add a good large molecule and plenty of detergent and anti-wear (neutral phosphorous) and you will have turbos that will not eat their center bearings!

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

Quote from: SHOdded on August 14, 2015, 04:07:59 PM
In the wintertime, those of us blessed enough to be in the salt belt might use products like HEET that contain methanol.  Do you recommend adding ACES IV or ACES IV-A to the gas tank at that time?

If you are using ACES IV in the fuel, there will be no need to add any methanol to your tank ever. 

I understand the reason to wick the water to the methanol.   I always suggest people keep their tanks filled in the winter anyway but if that is not possible, the water that is created by condensation will be broken down into their respective parts of hydrogen and oxygen and added to the fuel and burned harmlessly using ACES IV.

This is probably a good time to go over what the ACES IV contains:

DETERGENCY - This characteristic has a high detergency action that keeps solids and carbon from settling on the components and keeps the entire system clean and free of deposits.

GUM AND VARNISH REMOVER - Eliminates gum and varnish in the tank bottoms and sidewalls.

FUEL SYSTEM CONDITIONER- This is important for both carburetors and injectors to produce the correct spray pattern that will promote volumetric efficiency.  If an engine can't breath it cannot produce the power it was designed to provide.

FUEL PUMP AND INJECTOR CLEANER – A designed solvent compound that delaminates and cleans your fuel pump and injectors  from within the fuel.  This improves the spray pattern and gets the engine to have a vaporous spray and not atomized spray patterns.

BTU - ACES IV Gasoline Formula produces significantly more efficient use of engine compression out of the same volume of untreated fuel which provides more power/torque.  Effective use of BTU values from the same fuel volume.  Especially good for engines that are extremely efficient such as turbo and supercharged applications.

Fuel Tank and Gasoline Delivery System Protection – Our fuel catalyst contains pour point depressants and low temperature characteristics that improve fuel flow at very cold temperatures.  It has a negative affinity or repelling characteristic that resists fuel from turning to ice and the wax inherent in the fuel from plugging fuel filters and fuel lines.

FLAME FRONT ENHANCING COMPOUND - The major improving characteristic of this compound is increasing the engine's ability to burn the fuel it normally receives more efficiently

CONSERVATION OF ENERGY - E=Q+W.  Total Energy equals the quotient of expended heat + the appreciable work.  This produces more horsepower, torque, better throttle response and smoother running.  Also better cold weather operation as well.  Better utilization of BTU.

PRODUCES UPPER CYLINDER LUBRICITY AS A REACTION TO HEAT - produces a high technology post combustion lubricity to change the cylinder environment with plentiful lubricant created by the heat itself.  Cylinder components have tested to be between 4 to 8 times more lubricated than with base fuels alone especially with Ethyl Alcohol laced ultra low sulfur gasolines.

ANTI-CORROSION PROPERTIES - characteristic stops oxygen and formic acid mixed combustion deposits from allowing damage to fuel systems and cylinder componentry.

PRESSURE WAVE  DYNAMIC INCREASE WITHIN CYLINDERS - This modifies the flame speed allowing more fuel to be burned at a more expansive rate during peak heat release so as to continue the burn beyond normal available atmospheric oxygen producing power and efficiency.

GUM AND VARNISH CONTROL - Copper, vanadium and sodium can produce gum and varnish due to the combustion process especially Ethyl Alcohol fuels .  We have a designed component that deactivates this process which will stop gum and sludges from occurring not only in the fuel system but in the upper stem and guide area which rob performance due to white hot activation due to turbo heat.

MOLECULAR  BALANCING TECHNOLOGY  - Takes base fuel characteristics and makes them uniform or 'synthetic" in structure allowing fuel to burn cleanly and without after run or detonation.

These are the different compounds we combine in our product that makes our materials unique compared to any other "additive".

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com) 

Not sure of who the "main" contact person for LMS would be, but they monitor this forum too.

Im sure one of the Mike's here that have a more intimate relationship with them can steer you in the right direction as to whom you should speak with.

Here is there profile page.

http://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php?action=profile;u=181 (http://www.ecoboostperformanceforum.com/index.php?action=profile;u=181)

Welcome Brian, I'm the guy (charlie) you spoke with that was local. Glad you made your way here. 

Brian... Great info. Thanks!  Here's a few things I'm concerned about:
Does ACES IV offer any help on the exhaust valve build up of deposits inherent to all GDI engines? What does ACES IV cost to use figuring a 100 octane equivalent mix (assuming continuing my current tune and mods, see my signature)... And how critical is the mix to performance and having the ECM advance timing? Could you comment on ACES IV as it relates to FMC advise that additives shorten turbo life...,I appreciate that we shorten it just by pushing the platform.  I really would like to find a meth injection alternative with near equivalent performance to preserve my remaining 50K miles of BTB warranty... My dealer is cool so far, but a meth system would void a bunch of that.  TIA.

Quote from: glock-coma on August 14, 2015, 05:28:10 PM
Welcome Brian, I'm the guy (charlie) you spoke with that was local. Glad you made your way here.

Hey Charley!

Great to talk to you yesterday on the phone.  Hopefully we can get your SHO running well using our ACES IV at some point. Look forward to working with you when you are ready!

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

Quote from: BiGMaC on August 14, 2015, 05:29:38 PM
Brian... Great info. Thanks!

Your welcome.  Very glad to be talking to people on this forum.  Learning how to use it.  Can't figure out how to get rid of the Max Headroom looking picture on my signature!


Here's a few things I'm concerned about:
Does ACES IV offer any help on the exhaust valve build up of deposits inherent to all GDI engines?

Yes, ACES IV contains a very effective detergent compound that is between 5 and 7 times more effective than your best top tier gasoline on the market for cleaning cylinders. In some cases where they are really dirty, we recommend using ACES IV-FIC to get it clean safely and then continue the cleanliness with regular ACES IV once it is finished.  This is effective for all the cylinder components and the injector tips as well. Having the lubricity produced every 4th stroke allows the lubricity to affix itself on the stems and valves and keep anything from adhering to them.  Get clean and keep clean.



What does ACES IV cost to use figuring a 100 octane equivalent mix (assuming continuing my current tune and mods, see my signature)

The ACES IV EFI Tier 2 Bin 8 GDI Gasoline Formula is $79.95 for 32 oz and treats 192 gallons of fuel.  The ACES IV EFI for the gallon is $269.95 and treats 770 gallons of fuel.  Both come with an 8 oz squeeze bottle that treats 48 gallons before it needs to be refilled.


... And how critical is the mix to performance and having the ECM advance timing?

There is a window on the ACES IV.  Initially a 1 oz per 6 gallons is typically sufficient.  Less concentration is virtually useless.  However, we have seen in some cases where a 1 oz per 5, 1 oz per 4 and even 1 oz per 3 are used for many very high performance applications.  Other times we go to the ACES IV-P that is for blending your own racing fuels.  That one starts out at 1 oz per gallon and progresses in 1/2 oz increments until the right mixture is attained.  Usually for professional racers but can also be used for extreme applications on the street also.

Bottom line here is finding the most efficient burn to produce the most power.  Since most tuners will throw fuel at the engine to use a portion of it to cool the heads, adding ACES IV just makes the fuel trim even fatter.  Many times we have to have the tuner back off the amount of fuel that is used because the "wet fuel" produced by ACES IV is different than the dry fuel tunes that they are used to.  We can get more power by backing off the fuel and letting the lubricity cool the engine down instead.  This also may be what you are talking about on the Methanol.  Not a fan of methanol frankly in these kinds of engines.  VERY CORROSIVE!!!


Could you comment on ACES IV as it relates to FMC advice that additives shorten turbo life...

I don't blame FMC for not recommending fuel additives.  Frankly they are ineffective at best and at worst damaging to many components in their fuel systems.....including turbos. They warn you for a reason.  One of the most common fuel additives....and I think the one the engineers over at Ford were thinking about is anything with MMT in it.  Methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl.  The one ingredient you want to look at is manganese.  This is a metal that doesn't burn but produces a manganese oxide.  This metal is hard and abrasive.  These additives...Torco Accelerator, Shogun, Outlaw, and 104+ Octane Boost are examples of this.  I have seen engines eroded by using MMT.  Also much more abrasive than typical wind wear and exhaust system wear on the turbine blades.  Makes the plugs impossible to read as they are a red oxide color.  This stuff is bad news and one of the main reasons FMC doesn't recommend additives.  Their take is whatever is in the gasoline including up to 10% alcohol is all you need.  They really don't want warranty repairs so they caution about all additives.

However, Ford really doesn't know much if anything about our technologies.  We are after all a small company.  However, when you see the plethora of information that has been posted on the internet about what we do and how the ACES IV works, there is much more credibility for our way of combustion control.  Over the last 15 years we have treated over 5 billion gallons of fuel from all our customers....includes gasoline and diesel, nitromethane, alcohol and 2 strokes.  I originally did this for my 1969 Dodge Charger 383 4bbl car in the mid to late 1980s.  Put this in every one of my 7 cars.  My 2005 Grand Caravan SXT has 237,000+ miles on it and has had ACES IV in it since 30 miles.  Change oil every 12,000 miles with our QB oils and QB Ultra HP Oil Filters too!  We are not in that "additive" group because we don't contain petroleum distillates, metals, polymers or alcohols.

We have been used in about 125 to 140 2003 Audi C5 Intercooled Bi-Turbo 4.2L V8 Quattro sedans.  They do tunes and performance mods supported by using ACES IV.  Similar situation as it comes from the factory with 450 hp V8s.

...,I appreciate that we shorten it just by pushing the platform. 

There are ways to lengthen the life of the components by designing proper compounds to support the increased power and torque.  The big problem in all platforms is that people modify the engines with more power, the driveline with more stress and then use OEM designed materials in it and wonder why they fail. 
We look at each and every component in a vehicle and design coolants, engine oils, transmission fluids, transfer case lubricants and differential fluids that are head and shoulders above anything you can buy off the shelf.  This greatly increases the life of each and every component we work with. 



  I really would like to find a meth injection alternative with near equivalent performance to preserve my remaining 50K miles of BTB warranty.

ACES IV or ACES IV-P should be able to supplant your need for Methanol.  Also a QB coolant and QB Lubricant can also support the ultimate goal you are after....along with many others as well.  We don't void any warranties so you would be in good shape in that regard as well!

.. My dealer is cool so far, but a meth system would void a bunch of that.  TIA.

Hopefully this address what you are asking.  There is more to say but it at least starts the dialogue in the right direction to support and assist your performance goals here.

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

Thanks Brian... You should get a call from me next week. Love your approach!

As I understand it the lubricity protects the intake valves, but cleaning effects are still noted also... Is this correct?

I will be calling again next week as well.

I may run stock for a bit just to see what happens. But I will still use premium gas until everything is cleaned out. Do you do any logging? If so, what do you log? I would like my experience and exposure to help others in a scientific way. The seat of the pants dyno is too subjective.

Can someone put them (BND) in touch with someone at LMS and Torrie? Because what BND says is the tuning may need to modified to compensate for a better fuel burn. LMS seemingly is very conservative and only go with tried and true to them. Torrie seems to be more willing to test and try. Just my opinion from what I have read of Torrie and dealings with LMS. But once ALL parties can speak openly with one another, we may have a real gem here.

Thought of one more question: With ACES IV, is the compressor side of the turbo cleaned/protected if a system is VTA and a lot of the CC blowby is not recompressed?

Quote from: BiGMaC on August 15, 2015, 11:59:53 AM
Thanks Brian... You should get a call from me next week. Love your approach!

I look forward to talking to you and working with you to wring everything you can get from your SHO!

As I understand it the lubricity protects the intake valves, but cleaning effects are still noted also... Is this correct?

That is a very astute question. Ok, the lubricity compounds that we produce have a 3 stage efficacy.  Low temp to lubricate the in tank pump.  If you have ever felt a pump when it is pumping something, it gets hot.  This is where the first stage lubricity is imparted.

The second stage is in the medium temperature area.  Injectors where they spray.  This is a combination of lubricity from heat and detergency for the GDI system.    This is where the stems and guides area along with valve seat and face on the intake side get protected.  Remember when Michael Waltrip got caught with something in his fuel at NASCAR?  It was our ACES IV mixed with their Sunoco Blue.  The combination made a pale blue intake lubricity that the inspectors caught.  That is the second stage medium lubricity phase.

The Third and HOT phase of the lubricity is produced when the engine burns the fuel.  This becomes copious lubricity that is blown up the intake and exhaust stems to protect the stem/guide interface.  I mentioned the 2005 Grand Caravan SXT with the 3.8L.  At 168,200 miles, I broke an intake spring and an exhaust spring....fortunately they didn't drop the valves.  So we took the front head off and reviewed the head.  The stem and guide spec'd brand new and when we did a water test on the heads, not a single valve leaked water and the edges of the valves were still sharp. 

(http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww59/370Hemi/DSCF2288.jpg) (http://s705.photobucket.com/user/370Hemi/media/DSCF2288.jpg.html)

So basically the product will get clean and keep clean the fuel system and cylinder area, produce more pressure wave expansion of combustion gasses, and then cool down and lubricate the entire  cylinder components without producing bore friction. 

Here is an article from the 2010 Chevy book on ACES IV:

(http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww59/370Hemi/ACESIVFuelInjectorCleaning_zps7fe5a8b0.jpg) (http://s705.photobucket.com/user/370Hemi/media/ACESIVFuelInjectorCleaning_zps7fe5a8b0.jpg.html)

Here too is an article I wrote on the Charger forums about lubricity.  I think it is relative here for a complete answer:

This is a question that we have been getting a lot continually.....enough so.....that I thought I would address it again for those who are new or don't really know that much about ACES IV.

Since the 1920's, tetra ethyl lead (TEL) (CH3CH2)4Pb was added to the fuels for two major reasons.

(http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww59/370Hemi/Tetraethylleadpicture_zps7114c79e.jpg) (http://s705.photobucket.com/user/370Hemi/media/Tetraethylleadpicture_zps7114c79e.jpg.html)

1) For every 1 gram per gallon of gasoline, TEL would raise the octane value of the fuel 10 octane points.

2) It was a dry lubricant that was left over during and after combustion that deposited a light coating on the rings, bores, valve stems/guides and cushioned the valve seats and valve faces. 

The lead compound was mixed with ethylene dibromide or 1,2-dibromoethane (CH2Br)2 which was used as an anti-knock additive in leaded fuels. It reacts with lead residues to generate volatile lead bromides which prevented fouling of the engine because it didn't let lead build up on the valves and stems.

The reason that lead was eliminated in the fuels was for the lead and lead bromide oxides that were emitted into the atmosphere which got into the environment where children would breath it causing all kinds of mental problems as well as the inability of the lead from evacuating the body.  We still don't know to this day all the damage that it causes physiologically.

So it was decided to make all gasolines unleaded.  This made it much harder to get an octane value high enough in the gasoline for the typical cars of the day......hence the reason for the drop in compression ratios after 1971.

Unleaded gasolines were introduced in 1974.  The response to this was the changing of the metalurgy in the ring area which was hardened for use without lead (but still depending on the sulfur content to give some boundry lubricity or scuff impact lubricity) along with hardened valves and valve seats.  Initially induction hardened and then later hardened stellite valve seats and either bimetal exhaust valves or like in the case of the SRT8 cars a sodium filled stainless steel valves.  The important thing to understand here is that in changing the metalurgy of the valves and valve seats make them brittle and prone to cracking and failure over time.  Pieces of valve seat have dropped into cylinders of our cars and really beat up the insides of our hemis!!

By 1996, the Clean Air Act of 1990 made sales of road gasoline with lead in it completely illegal.  While the Congress exempted leaded gasolines for sale to "racing" use only for off road competitions, it is gone practically in on road fuels.  $8.50 to $12.50 per gallon for leaded racing fuels are the norm now.

MTBE or Methyl tert-butyl ether (CH3)3COCH3 replaced lead as an anti-knock compund in the US as it has been used in gasoline at low levels since 1979 to replace tetraethyl lead and to increase its octane rating helping prevent engine knocking. It is an oxygenate (mandated by the clean air act of 1990).

Oxygenates help gasoline burn more completely, reducing tailpipe emissions from pre-1984 motor vehicles; dilutes or displaces gasoline components such as aromatics like benzene and sulfur while it optimizes the oxidation during combustion. Most refiners chose MTBE over other oxygenates primarily for its blending characteristics and low cost..

In 2000, the U.S. EPA drafted plans to phase out the use of MTBE nationwide over four years. However,as of the fall 2006, hundreds of lawsuits are still pending regarding MTBE contamination of public and private drinking water supplies.  It is a deadly poison!  Great job EPA!!!

The Energy Policy Act of 2005, passed in the U.S. House of Representatives, did not include a provision for shielding MTBE manufacturers from water contamination lawsuits.  A final bill was passed by both houses and signed into law by President Bush phasing out MTBE. The lack of MTBE liability protection from manufacturers that were contracted by the EPA for gasoline introduction is resulting in a switchover to the use of ethyl alcohol or ethanol CH3CH2OH as a gasoline additive.

(http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww59/370Hemi/CornasFuel_zps561974b8.jpg) (http://s705.photobucket.com/user/370Hemi/media/CornasFuel_zps561974b8.jpg.html)

It is surmised by some investment traders and consumer advocate groups that this is one of the reasons for an increase in gasoline prices.......pass it on to consumers.  Government mandates it, companies are invited to fill the need, it is found out to be as bad or worse than the original problem....government then sues companies that filled the need!
 
Since 2007, the EPA has phased out sulfur as a pollutant that has caused issues with the environment in both diesel fuel and gasolines.  While it is not directly a problem for either diesel at 4 ppm of sulfur nor gasoline at less than 30 ppm, it is the process that takes the oxygen and nitrogen compounds out.......along with the sulfur.... that are the specific problems for engines. 

What we find is that the lack of lubricity in the upper cylinders cause more bore friction.....robbing horsepower and torque, creating more heat that cooks the oils,  and then ultimately wear in that area causing the engines to start using more oil through the ring and oil control area.  This also wears off the moly coat that is applied at the factory allowing the pistons to rattle more in the bores as they contact the sides of the piston wall. 

(http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww59/370Hemi/PistonSkirtWear_zpsdbea810d.jpg) (http://s705.photobucket.com/user/370Hemi/media/PistonSkirtWear_zpsdbea810d.jpg.html)

On the valve side, since you have oil control seals on the valve stems that keep most of the oil from getting down the lower and middle part of the stem, the guide area tends to turn oval from constant pushing against the same side of the guide.

(http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww59/370Hemi/EngineValveGuideWearPicture_zpsbc296e6c.jpg) (http://s705.photobucket.com/user/370Hemi/media/EngineValveGuideWearPicture_zpsbc296e6c.jpg.html)

The other part of the head/valve area is the valve seat and valve face.  The biggest problem is that the valves are hitting up against the valve seat with no cushion between them at all.  This hammering of the intake and especially the exhaust side of the engine without any cushion or relief not only makes noise (the hemi tick) but can lead to the valve seat just delaminating and breaking apart.  The results of this are catastrophic!!

(http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww59/370Hemi/Valveseatdamgeintakeside_zps5ea18e44.jpg) (http://s705.photobucket.com/user/370Hemi/media/Valveseatdamgeintakeside_zps5ea18e44.jpg.html)

This is why when we constantly recommend ACES IV in the gasoline, it is with these pictures in mind that we try to pursuade people to add it to their fuels.

The upper cylinder lubricity was vetted by David Vizard on two engines running 250 hours straight at high rpm and load (that's 11 straight days....24 hours at a time) to see what the NET results would be. 

Both engines prepared the same and run on the same batch of fuel.  The first engine without ACES IV and the second one with the additized ACES IV catalyst.

After the 250 hours each, they were disassembled and measured with a 40 millionths micrometer to determine the differences.  His way of net measuring was to take the very best cylinder measurements from the non-additized engine and compare it to the worst cylinder measurements of the ACES IV engine.  The results were 6 times less ring and bore wear, 3.6 times less stem and guide wear and 5 times less valve recession (soft head engines pull up the valves into the head).

(http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww59/370Hemi/ACESIVFuelInjectorCleaning_zps7fe5a8b0.jpg) (http://s705.photobucket.com/user/370Hemi/media/ACESIVFuelInjectorCleaning_zps7fe5a8b0.jpg.html)

The hardened valves and seats on our hemi engines don't pull up into the heads, they just shatter the guides over time.  By the way, not one engine that is running ACES IV has dropped a valve guide.....from any manufacturer.

However, if you have cylinder lubricity, the rings slide on the bores, the valves get plentiful lubricity, and the valve seats are lubricated and cushioned.  Noise quiets down.

Here is the Turbo Z with 105,000 miles running ACES IV ( and QuantumBlue Lubricants)

(http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww59/370Hemi/1985DodgeDaytonaTurboZ005-1.jpg) (http://s705.photobucket.com/user/370Hemi/media/1985DodgeDaytonaTurboZ005-1.jpg.html)

(http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww59/370Hemi/1985DodgeDaytonaTurboZ002-1.jpg) (http://s705.photobucket.com/user/370Hemi/media/1985DodgeDaytonaTurboZ002-1.jpg.html)

(http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww59/370Hemi/1985DodgeDaytonaTurboZ006-1.jpg) (http://s705.photobucket.com/user/370Hemi/media/1985DodgeDaytonaTurboZ006-1.jpg.html)

(http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww59/370Hemi/1985DodgeDaytonaTurboZ004-1.jpg) (http://s705.photobucket.com/user/370Hemi/media/1985DodgeDaytonaTurboZ004-1.jpg.html)

(http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww59/370Hemi/1985DodgeDaytonaTurboZ007-1.jpg) (http://s705.photobucket.com/user/370Hemi/media/1985DodgeDaytonaTurboZ007-1.jpg.html)

Many people here are new and may have not really been involved in what we have put forth in the past so I thought it was good to go over it again for all the new members here and a reminder to the older members as well!:beerchug:

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC:driving:
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

Neat history lesson and succinct technical discussion regarding the need for a product like ACES-IV.  Thanks, Brian!

@ BND 370 HEMI - Thank you for taking the time to swing by and share this very insightful information!

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Brian-

When I bought mine I went in at 150 miles to have the oil changed to Amsoil signature and the tech noticed the oil was "like the break in oil in the Shelbys".. when he called the Ford hotline they confirmed this and strongly suggested I leave it in for 4k miles which I am approaching quickly.

Any thoughts on what this "special break in" oil is and why they think it's so important?

Do you think I should've just drained it and added the Amsoil anyway?

I've left the car stock until I can get some good fluid in the car, but I'm about 200 miles away and getting excited about putting on the DP's, cutout, and giving Torrie at Unleashed Tuning a crack at the new one.

I'm ready to order Quantum Blue and ACES whenever you get the blend ready.

Quote from: SHOdded on August 15, 2015, 05:51:04 PM
Neat history lesson and succinct technical discussion regarding the need for a product like ACES-IV.  Thanks, Brian!

Your welcome.  It took me a while to compile that when I posted it originally and I thought that having it here would give a cogent background for cylinder lubricity.

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

Quote from: IHeartGroceries on August 15, 2015, 06:37:29 PM
@ BND 370 HEMI - Thank you for taking the time to swing by and share this very insightful information!

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Your welcome.  Glad to be of assistance.

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

Has anyone tried it yet, where can it be purchased

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 16, 2015, 10:20:21 PM
Brian-

When I bought mine I went in at 150 miles to have the oil changed to Amsoil signature and the tech noticed the oil was "like the break in oil in the Shelbys".. when he called the Ford hotline they confirmed this and strongly suggested I leave it in for 4k miles which I am approaching quickly.

Any thoughts on what this "special break in" oil is and why they think it's so important?

Typically a high performance vehicle from any of the performance divisions....PVO, SVT, SRT and the like have a reputation to uphold.  The break-in lubricants in these cars have a lot of viscosity compounds and anti-shear with surface treatment that is necessary to make the "settle in" break-in uneventful and consistent.  That is what I believe is in your SHO at present.  It is not a type of oil you would run on a regular basis as it is very expensive and not necessary after the break-in period. 

Amsoil signature series oil is a ILSAC GF-5 API SN Type oil that is lower on volatility with more molybdenum disulfide in it to supplant zinc and acidic phosphorous.  Every manufacturer is trying to meet the new standards coming for piston cleanliness and emissions specs. 

It is an ok oil as an off the shelf product but is not like the break-in lubricants that FORD does for their HP vehicles.  The break-in is a Group V ester base that is considered an exotic.  You can't even buy it again.  Special blend for these types of divisions.

Do you think I should've just drained it and added the Amsoil anyway?

No, I think you did the right thing in following the technician's advice and also Ford HP.

I've left the car stock until I can get some good fluid in the car, but I'm about 200 miles away and getting excited about putting on the DP's, cutout, and giving Torrie at Unleashed Tuning a crack at the new one.

I don't blame you in the least.  It is in our blood....an infection....hyper extension of the right foot!  LOL.

I'm ready to order Quantum Blue and ACES whenever you get the blend ready.

Well and we can do that for you.  I have been reviewing the SHO Platform and comparing it to the 3.5L Ecoboost in the Ford F150 that Jack has. 

The SHO has to have an engine oil that meets Ford specification WSS-M2C946-A.  We want to exceed this spec as this spec is "resource conserving" at it's heart and is GF-5 so reduced zinc, phosphorous, almost no magnesium at all and Group IV based.  These oils have a 4,000 to 5,000 mile maximum and no reserve protection.  They want constant oil changes based on this spec.

We have done so much better by simply designing a better lubricant (7.5w32 HP Competition Formula 3.5L Twin Turbo Intercooled V6 Custom Blend) with a better filter and protecting the whole top end with ACES IV.  The combination of a larger molecule, real zinc, neutral phosphorous and diesel quality magnesium with the Quantum-A and Quantum-B compounds protect these twin turbo engines with oil analysis to prove it. 

Here is Jacks Ford F150 Ecoboost 3.5L Twin Turbo with 4 oil changes using the QuantumBlue 7.5w32 HP Competition Formula oil.

(http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww59/370Hemi/16328%20Miles%20Ford%20Ecoboost%20F150%20Jack%20in%20Arkansas_zpseexnzsbd.jpg) (http://s705.photobucket.com/user/370Hemi/media/16328%20Miles%20Ford%20Ecoboost%20F150%20Jack%20in%20Arkansas_zpseexnzsbd.jpg.html)

The initial oil was the Ford oil at 2,865.  Note the little amount of magnesium in the sample - 9 ppm but look at the amount of Moly and Boron - 49 ppm and 107 ppm.  Phosphorous at 596 and zinc at 692.  This is typical of off the shelf GF-5 API-SN oils.

Look at the 4 changes of QuantumBlue 7.5w32.  7,985, 10,926, 14,386 and 16,328 miles. 

Magnesium between 579 and 680.  579 ppm div by 9 ppm = 64 times as much detergent and dispersant with anti-foaming.  Needed in an augmented performance engine!

Phosphorous in the 799 to 2825 range.  2825 div by 596 is 4.74 times more phosphorous which is your anti-wear compound.  Ours is Neutral in design while theirs is acidic in nature.

Zinc in the 962 to 1125 range.  1032 div by 692 = 1.49 times more zinc which is your anti-rust and anti-scuff additive.  Ours is ZnDDP where theirs is ZDP.  Not as effective on surfaces.

Low on Moly and virtually no boron.  We don't like boron as it gets cakey in the oil passages. 

The wear is low on iron and chromium which is your bore and your rings.  No lead, typically low aluminum skirt wear and virtually no valve wear at 1 ppm.  Remember that the 16,328 is 3.27 times a 5,000 mile oil change.  This is empirical proof that we can produce a better oil that runs longer. 

Looking forward to working with you and getting our materials into your SHO so you can go the way you want to with confidence!

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

Quote from: Boggus on August 17, 2015, 12:53:55 AM
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 (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

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!

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 (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.

Quote from: 92BlackGT on August 17, 2015, 02:29:22 AM
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:

(http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww59/370Hemi/ChevyVP-110RacingFuel598_zpsc35b3a7c.jpg) (http://s705.photobucket.com/user/370Hemi/media/ChevyVP-110RacingFuel598_zpsc35b3a7c.jpg.html)

and 91 by itself:

(http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww59/370Hemi/Chevy91Octanewithethanolon598ChevyV8_zpse607dcbc.png) (http://s705.photobucket.com/user/370Hemi/media/Chevy91Octanewithethanolon598ChevyV8_zpse607dcbc.png.html)

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

(http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww59/370Hemi/Chevy91OctaneFuelwithEthanolACESIVin598ChevyV8_zps0562036a.jpg) (http://s705.photobucket.com/user/370Hemi/media/Chevy91OctaneFuelwithEthanolACESIVin598ChevyV8_zps0562036a.jpg.html)


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 (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

Quote from: SHOdded on August 17, 2015, 04:24:23 AM
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:

(http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww59/370Hemi/QuantumBlue%20Ford%20Ultra%20HP%20Oil%20Filters%20For%203.5L%20Ecoboost%20Engines%20and%205.0L%20V8%20Engines_zpsxyu1ssqq.jpg) (http://s705.photobucket.com/user/370Hemi/media/QuantumBlue%20Ford%20Ultra%20HP%20Oil%20Filters%20For%203.5L%20Ecoboost%20Engines%20and%205.0L%20V8%20Engines_zpsxyu1ssqq.jpg.html)

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:

(http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww59/370Hemi/13500%20miles%20Oil%20Sample%20Arts%202013%20Chevrolet%20Camaro%20_zpskgoewcz5.jpg) (http://s705.photobucket.com/user/370Hemi/media/13500%20miles%20Oil%20Sample%20Arts%202013%20Chevrolet%20Camaro%20_zpskgoewcz5.jpg.html)

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 (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 (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

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.

Dx are u running 12.0-12.2?

Quote from: Dxlnt1 on August 18, 2015, 11:50:11 PM
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?     

Quote from: ajpturbo on August 19, 2015, 07:23:55 AM
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.

Quote from: J-Will on August 19, 2015, 09:03:28 AM

Quote from: Dxlnt1 on August 18, 2015, 11:50:11 PM
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.

Quote from: Dxlnt1 on August 19, 2015, 10:51:45 AM

Quote from: ajpturbo on August 19, 2015, 07:23:55 AM
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 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.

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

Quote from: BND 370 Hemi on August 17, 2015, 11:10:40 AM

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://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.

Quote from: ajpturbo on August 19, 2015, 11:01:25 AM

Quote from: Dxlnt1 on August 19, 2015, 10:51:45 AM

Quote from: ajpturbo on August 19, 2015, 07:23:55 AM
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.

(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab162/dxlnt1/SHO/vs240Z_zps44f782bb.jpg)


I think this was after repairs were made but still running the 2 bar  stage 4 tune
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab162/dxlnt1/IMG_4146_zps2a341dc6.jpg)

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 19, 2015, 12:00:09 PM
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.

Quote from: SHOdded on August 19, 2015, 12:30:10 PM
Will be an interesting evolution to watch, FoMoCo!  Mid 12's or better without going to eth/meth would be nice :D

Mid 12's?

Don't forget I still have Catted DP's and Mike's boost actuated cutout to add to the mix that were never installed on the 13. (And possibly another item or 2  :o )

11.9999999999999

Whatever makes ya happy LOL!

Quote from: J-Will on August 19, 2015, 09:03:28 AM

Quote from: Dxlnt1 on August 18, 2015, 11:50:11 PM
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.

You are correct that it can and should replace Methanol.  There really isn't any btu value to Methanol in that it has 65,000 btu per gallon, Ethanol at 87,500 btu per gallon while gasoline has 126,000 btu per gallon.  The cooling effect is what you are after with Methanol.  Being able to utilize the energy more effectively with greater expansion of gasses during combustion, the pressure wave acceleration will produce more effective power and torque while not only cooling it off with better potential to kinetic energy release but also copious lubricity that really will greatly increase the life of the rings and cylinder components in these engines!  Doing this without eating your bearings.....and everything else like corrosive Methanol!


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).

I would term it a catalyst in function and reaction.  Think of additives like Elmers Glue and ACES IV more like Epoxy.  Once the reaction happens, it is going to harden up.  Same with ACES IV.  Once it is in the fuel it becomes part of it and then responds to the combustion as I stated earlier.

  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.

Yes, you would use ACES IV in every tankful.  The real advantage here is that at worse case scenario, you will have your rings, bores and valves last significantly longer since they are clean, cooler, and copiously lubricated from burning ACES IV.  Not only no damage but serious reduction of wear....6 times less ring and bore wear, 4 times less stem and guide wear and 5 times less valve impact face and seat damage too.  Provides the opportunity to have integrity of the componentry much longer than what FORD would have designed into this platform.  The oil analysis also bares this out as well with little or no nickel in the sample from Jacks truck with 16,328 miles on it!

BND- Thank you for joining the site.

Your welcome. When I commit to a platform after being invited to do so, we bring all our expertise to the forefront to assist our customers in the best way possible....whether engine, transmission, PTU, differential, steering or coolant.....along with fuel.


  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?   

Glad to hear that you have read what we wrote with an open mind and with interest.

Simply put, a combination of ACES IV in the fuel to control combustion and lubricate the cylinders and keep everything clean is the first leg of a 3 legged stool.

QuantumBlue Custom Blends for the engine to give more cushion between the parts, absorb more heat, maintain integrity of the design so that you can push it to the limit safely.  Leg 2

QuantumBlue HP Gold Coolants that evaporate heat up to 4 times faster with out sodium or sulfates that are just about as efficient as water yet has a -43 deg below freeze and a 286 degree boil over at 15 psi for upper end.  Leg 3

Put these together and you have the best chance to get rid of the dreaded heat in the intake manifold that is the bane of any turbo or supercharged car while protecting the systems as best as is possible with true custom designed and augmented materials that truly perform which are head and shoulders above anything else you can buy off the shelf.....period!

I hope this answers what you were asking.  ACES IV, QB Custom Blends, and QB Gold Coolant.....done!

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

Just the response I was hoping for.  I am excited to see outcomes from the first adopters.  The ACES IV product seems the most appealing at this point in time for me, though I certainly do not mind swapping out oil and coolant. 

I bought ACES IV and ACES Diesel for the 3 cars, the SHO, the WRX and my wife's 2011 VW TDI. I will keep you inform of how it goes.

Since I was overdue for fluid change in truck, I ordered all oils for trans and both differentials in GMC Yukon and the ACES IV. My upcoming road trip will alow the ACES IV to show its head

Nice!  Best of luck with these products, Dxlint1, and have fun on the road trip!

BND- what is the longevity and utility for your products in a vehicle that is not a daily driver, or performance oriented?  I have a 95 Mustang GT convertible that  only comes out a handful of times during the spring-fall weather.  It has 29k miles on it.  I currently use OEM products in it, though several years ago switched from using the Ford recommended blended oil to full synthetic. 

My thought is that anything that provides added lubricity is a good thing, however the products needs sticking power to be able to last without circulating throughout as frequently as most would prefer.  Cleaning the internal engine is less of a concern, but who would actually turn that down?  Though, using the product like ACES IV at every fill up might not be possible long term. 

I bring this up because a few years ago the transmission was acting up- having trouble shifting, the shifts were prolonged, stuttered, and overly harsh.  Took it to the mechanic, who advised a flush.  After a double flush, and some minor driving it was determined that the cause was torque converter chatter due to simply not allowing the fluids to circulate.  It was believed that gravity had pulled the fluids down, and without driving the vehicle to recirculate them, they stayed, going to waste until I started the car and drove it which while did start to circulate the fluid, was still catching up on lubricating everything.  I also got a quick lesson in how fluids work to absorb water regardless of if the car is running or not, and why all fluid changes are based on mileage and time duration.

That experience is now always in the back of my mind.  Sure I start the car more often during the off months now.  But anything that can assist in the long term protection is going to get my attention.  You mentioned that your oils surpass SAE standards.  I'd like to see if that is something I could take advantage of in a garage queen for the engine and trans.

I just spent a nice chunk of my kids inheritance on lubricants from top to bottom for the BBG!

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 21, 2015, 04:36:47 PM
I just spent a nice chunk of my kids inheritance on lubricants from top to bottom for the BBG!

Looking forward to your review.

Quote from: BiGMaC on August 21, 2015, 04:40:05 PM

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 21, 2015, 04:36:47 PM
I just spent a nice chunk of my kids inheritance on lubricants from top to bottom for the BBG!

Looking forward to your review.

x2^^^^^^

Quote from: J-Will on August 20, 2015, 09:16:57 AM
Just the response I was hoping for.  I am excited to see outcomes from the first adopters.  The ACES IV product seems the most appealing at this point in time for me, though I certainly do not mind swapping out oil and coolant.

Glad to hear you agree with what we do.  Looking forward to working with you once you feel confident in our product offerings.  Doing the 3 legs of the stool .......gives the car palpable performance and increased durability.

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com) 

Quote from: J-Will on August 21, 2015, 07:58:12 AM
BND- what is the longevity and utility for your products in a vehicle that is not a daily driver, or performance oriented?

Good question!!  I have 5 vehicles that I store and have for many years.  1969 Dodge Charger 383 4bbl, 1985 Dodge Daytona Turbo Z, 2000 Chrysler 300M 3.5L SOHC, 2006 Dodge Charger 6.1L SRT8 and a 2011 Dodge Grand Caravan R/T.   These sit over the winter and even part of the summer as I spend most of my time providing materials for everyone else to use and drive.  The 06 Charger SRT8 I bought brand new and just turned 11,000 miles last Saturday.  The 69 Charger has really sat for 7 years but will start up and run and drive fine when I do take it out....just did last Friday/Saturday.   

Anyway, these materials we make are tailor made to the applications we are given.   Think of Lowes or Home Depot buying paint.  You go to them for a specific interior latex semi-gloss and you hand the paint guy a color swatch for the exact color you want paint for.  Once he makes that paint, it is your paint for your application and at this time.   We see our products in the same venue.  Not only what do you have, but what mods do you have, is it stock, how is it used and where does it live.  Is it driven every day or sit 6 to 9 months of the year.  Is it in the sands of Arizona or the salted streets of Cleveland.   Not only cast block, aluminum head, injected, but sits in the garage with still a relative humidity of 40%.   We have to add tackifiers, demulsifiers to keep water from damaging and emulsifying the oils.  When we make a lubricant it is good for at least 10k miles between changes or 2 years....whichever comes first.  This is the reason for the increased amount of zinc, phosphorous and calcium.  The magnesium detergents are diesel locomotive quality so that it will get clean and keep clean any engine it is put in.   This is what custom blended lubricants are all about.  Specifically for you and not trying to be everything to everyone everywhere all the time.  That is the definition of mediocrity! 

  I have a 95 Mustang GT convertible that  only comes out a handful of times during the spring-fall weather.  It has 29k miles on it.  I currently use OEM products in it, though several years ago switched from using the Ford recommended blended oil to full synthetic.

The bad thing about the Group IV oils is that their characteristics are very small molecule oils and tend to be aggressive on the seals as well as very bad at dropping their additive packages in the pans. This is accentuated by long term storage where they never whip back up into the oil and end up being gummy and sticky....not a good characteristic for storing a car!  We go an opposite direction in not using any PAO based oils at all and design our own larger molecule structure.....that is still synthetic but by mineral stocks and not condensed natural gas or GTL!

With what you have there on the GT, it would do well with a 12.5w32 HP Competition Formula designed for your 5.0L HO engine.  I know it is supposed to have a 5w20 but you aren't driving the car in -47 degrees below 0 weather so a 12.5 is good for -7 below 0 but much better to 140 degrees ambient temperatures.  Also plenty of additives designed specifically for storage use.  Same can be done for steering system, transmission...AOD-E automatic, and the differential.  Remember these all have vents that bring in and expel atmosphere.  Designing them right up front cost a little more than off the shelf but contain significant protection that a price oil off the shelf just doesnt' have frankly!

My thought is that anything that provides added lubricity is a good thing, however the products needs sticking power to be able to last without circulating throughout as frequently as most would prefer.  Cleaning the internal engine is less of a concern, but who would actually turn that down?

Right. This is why we add tackifiers to the oils so that there are no dry starts and the compound have integrity so that no storage problems can occur.  You want the cleanliness and the purity to be tantamount in a storage car because they do not get circulated like an every day to and from work and weekend project vehicle.....like a minivan etc.  Design becomes significant to the health of the vehicle. 

Though, using the product like ACES IV at every fill up might not be possible long term.

Depends on what your goals are for the car.  I have 238,000 miles on my 2005 Grand Caravan SXT 3.8L (and was supposed to be run on 5w20...yet has been running a 12.5w35 for 11 years) and have used ACES IV in every tank of fuel over the last 11 years....bought it in 2004.
At 168,200 miles we broke an intake spring and an exhaust spring.  Had to pull the head and do a water test on the head.....not a single valve leaked water....and it should have been a sprinkling can by that many miles.  Van was put back together with new springs, valve locks and valve seals and is driven every day.  Doens't burn oil and gets 25 mpg on the highway still to this day.  With the ethanol fuels and no lubricity left as there is no sulfur either....starting and running your car with these fuels is detrimental.  Buying a gallon of ACES IV and using 15 gallons per week, a gallon would last you a year.  Is .74 cents per day worth 6 times less ring and bore wear, 4 times less stem and guide wear and 5 times less valve face and seat damage......I think so and 12,000 other customers agree with that so far.  Treated just at 5 billion gallons of fuel...(including diesel) and 100 million Miles + on our lubricants.  Presently we have a 99% reorder rate on ACES IV and a 98.7% reorder rate on everything else we do.

I bring this up because a few years ago the transmission was acting up- having trouble shifting, the shifts were prolonged, stuttered, and overly harsh.  Took it to the mechanic, who advised a flush.  After a double flush, and some minor driving it was determined that the cause was torque converter chatter due to simply not allowing the fluids to circulate.  It was believed that gravity had pulled the fluids down, and without driving the vehicle to recirculate them, they stayed, going to waste until I started the car and drove it which while did start to circulate the fluid, was still catching up on lubricating everything.  I also got a quick lesson in how fluids work to absorb water regardless of if the car is running or not, and why all fluid changes are based on mileage and time duration.

I have this discussion with people every week as they believe that going to a "synthetic" oil is somehow going to save them because they spent a little more for it and it is supposed to be better especially when they have heard stories of mineral oils damaging things in storage.  Both will damage a stored car if they do not contain the materials necessary for protection.  There is very little thought to longevity in an off the shelf oil because it is assumed they will do the 3,000 to 5,000 mile drain interval and or do it every 6 months.  Remember too that what you buy off the shelf at any local store or dealer comes from a distribution network. 

Manufacturer to wholesaler to sub-wholesaler to retailer to you.   So in this scenario...you buy a $7.80 quart of Mobil 1 that cost the retailer $4.68 (40% profit) that purchased it from their supplier (sub-wholesaler) which buys a single pallet of oil who makes 30% profit who paid $3.28 who got it from a wholesaler who makes 30% profit that paid $2.29 for that lubricant who bought it in truck loads from Mobil which had a total cost of $1.72.  So when the tribologist....like me is told to make the best lubricant you can BUT you need to do it for no more than $1.72.......Wrong way to make a lubricant and certainly not designed for any kind of time or storage in mind!!  But this is what I mean by a price oil.  Ending price point dictates what initial cost has to be.  This is why our lubricants are more expensive on the front end.  Because we have a much larger molecule structure, still synthetic, but with significantly more and better materials designed for a specific customer each and every time because our customer base demands performance in all aspects....not just a good price.  We have the best price if you consider not having to change out your engine oil on a stored car every 6 months and changing all the other fluids every 2 years.  How many people really change their differential, transmission and steering system fluids every 2 years while in storage!?   I still talk to people to this day that don't realize that they have to flush their brake fluid every 2 years or it will eventually come out of the calipers like mayonnaise.  Price is a one time thing but cost is a lifetime thing. 

That experience is now always in the back of my mind.  Sure I start the car more often during the off months now.  But anything that can assist in the long term protection is going to get my attention.

Depending on the situation, starting it every month or so....if it brings the temps above dew point and then is cooled down at or below dew point will actually promote MORE moisture retention than just leaving it sit and assimilate the ambient temps during storage.  We have to think of everything here to protect the vehicles we love so much. 


You mentioned that your oils surpass SAE standards.  I'd like to see if that is something I could take advantage of in a garage queen for the engine and trans.

Yes, they are much more robust in their design, contents and in performance.  Whether it is a fire breathing vehicle that you tear pavement with or just a nice factory vehicle you want to take care of, we take that into consideration and make a specific material for you....as you are a person living in a certain place and driving a specific vehicle and not just a number on an SAE chart!

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

I gave Brian my credit card number yesterday around 2, my order showed up on my doorstep at 1130 am today.

Thanks for the lightening fast service!

Let the games begin!

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 22, 2015, 03:48:33 PM
I gave Brian my credit card number yesterday around 2, my order showed up on my doorstep at 1130 am today.

Thanks for the lightening fast service!

Awesome service!

welp, i just place an order for some ACES IV and motor oil. Brian said he would stay late to make sure my oil gets made up tonight so he could ship it out ASAP. i'm looking forward to protecting my engine!

Bravo, and good luck!

those that can, please data log some before and afters.  I'm really interested in that Learned Octane value and KR

Quote from: J-Will on August 24, 2015, 03:23:01 PM
those that can, please data log some before and afters.  I'm really interested in that Learned Octane value and KR

I don't have a stock log.

I am not tuned but I do have the Typhoon installed currently.

Aces IV went in Saturday and the break-in oil was removed and Quantum blue added today.

OAR (LOR) is not logged but it hasn't moved from -1 and that was going from E20 + M.18 to just the ACES.

So I wanted to give some initial impressions with the Aces IV...

The two days prior to install I started seeing lots of +KR and not nearly as much -. (some trips I wouldn't see-4 at all!)I was getting frustrated as i was seeing +7 at times and it started out of the blue. Same blend I've been running and same stations so IDK what was going on.

First off, I hate the squeeze bottle! Need one with a 1 OZ graduation.  (Could be operator error I guess, lol, I was a little frustrated) I filled it up, went to drop Mrs. FoMoCoSHO off at her car, then realized I didn't shake it. DAMMIT TO HELL! Back to the house, dumped back in original container, shook it up this time, refilled squeeze bottle, and finally off to Shell. 

Adding in the ACES made an immediate improvement to the negative KR side. Behaved similar to corn, maybe more sensitive to throttle inputs actually. Positive events subsided immediately as well. The events are still there but the severity and frequency dropped quite dramatically. I used 3.25 ounces on the initial fillup.

Other than that the car ran like crap Saturday and yesterday and Torque confirmed the power drop. Still  having weird KR events so I think I'm going to switch to the Shell station I used to use. Even before this last weirdness I've seen some unexpected fuel trim behavior as well recently.

Today however, the car seemed to work it out somewhat and it feels much like it did on the corn, once again confirmed by Torque power readings.

The car is still pulling fuel and the trims are not dialed in yet. I am seeing LTFT of -.8 in bank 2 at times and I never saw that when I was using straight Shell so that is at least an indication that the mixture is indeed "fatter" as Brian refers to and the car is pulling fuel to adjust. I filled up at a little less that a quarter tank so still dealing with a little E and M in the mix as well. My guess is at least another complete tank before we consider the old blend to "trace amounts".

I know a couple of the other guys have ordered so I'm curious about their experiences. I'm concerned that I have a fuel quality issue coinciding with the switch so I'm not sure I'm providing the best data right now.

Def have to give the car some time to adjust, if it's anything like products that I have logged with my Edge.  Sometimes it takes a 100 miles or so of varied driving to settle in and give consistent trims & readings.  Heck it happens just by switching gas stations!  I went from Shell (top tier, same station) to Safeway (grocery tier) gas, and the logs were pretty wild.  Adding an octane booster like 104+ also elicited similar behavior, though it took less time for the trims to settle in.

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 24, 2015, 10:18:38 PM
So I wanted to give some initial impressions with the Aces IV...

The two days prior to install I started seeing lots of +KR and not nearly as much -. (some trips I wouldn't see-4 at all!)I was getting frustrated as i was seeing +7 at times and it started out of the blue. Same blend I've been running and same stations so IDK what was going on.

First off, I hate the squeeze bottle! Need one with a 1 OZ graduation.  (Could be operator error I guess, lol, I was a little frustrated) I filled it up, went to drop Mrs. FoMoCoSHO off at her car, then realized I didn't shake it. DAMMIT TO HELL! Back to the house, dumped back in original container, shook it up this time, refilled squeeze bottle, and finally off to Shell. 

Adding in the ACES made an immediate improvement to the negative KR side. Behaved similar to corn, maybe more sensitive to throttle inputs actually. Positive events subsided immediately as well. The events are still there but the severity and frequency dropped quite dramatically. I used 3.25 ounces on the initial fillup.

Other than that the car ran like crap Saturday and yesterday and Torque confirmed the power drop. Still  having weird KR events so I think I'm going to switch to the Shell station I used to use. Even before this last weirdness I've seen some unexpected fuel trim behavior as well recently.

Today however, the car seemed to work it out somewhat and it feels much like it did on the corn, once again confirmed by Torque power readings.

The car is still pulling fuel and the trims are not dialed in yet. I am seeing LTFT of -.8 in bank 2 at times and I never saw that when I was using straight Shell so that is at least an indication that the mixture is indeed "fatter" as Brian refers to and the car is pulling fuel to adjust. I filled up at a little less that a quarter tank so still dealing with a little E and M in the mix as well. My guess is at least another complete tank before we consider the old blend to "trace amounts".

I know a couple of the other guys have ordered so I'm curious about their experiences. I'm concerned that I have a fuel quality issue coinciding with the switch so I'm not sure I'm providing the best data right now.

Excellent initial feedback... Thanks! More please.
Also would be interested if changing Shell stations helps. As I have posted... My SHO just didn't like the new nitro plus as well as the (two month) older Shell formulation or Chevron.

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 24, 2015, 10:18:38 PM
So I wanted to give some initial impressions with the Aces IV...

The two days prior to install I started seeing lots of +KR and not nearly as much -. (some trips I wouldn't see-4 at all!)I was getting frustrated as i was seeing +7 at times and it started out of the blue. Same blend I've been running and same stations so IDK what was going on.

First off, I hate the squeeze bottle! Need one with a 1 OZ graduation.  (Could be operator error I guess, lol, I was a little frustrated) I filled it up, went to drop Mrs. FoMoCoSHO off at her car, then realized I didn't shake it. DAMMIT TO HELL! Back to the house, dumped back in original container, shook it up this time, refilled squeeze bottle, and finally off to Shell. 

Adding in the ACES made an immediate improvement to the negative KR side. Behaved similar to corn, maybe more sensitive to throttle inputs actually. Positive events subsided immediately as well. The events are still there but the severity and frequency dropped quite dramatically. I used 3.25 ounces on the initial fillup.

Other than that the car ran like crap Saturday and yesterday and Torque confirmed the power drop. Still  having weird KR events so I think I'm going to switch to the Shell station I used to use. Even before this last weirdness I've seen some unexpected fuel trim behavior as well recently.

Today however, the car seemed to work it out somewhat and it feels much like it did on the corn, once again confirmed by Torque power readings.

The car is still pulling fuel and the trims are not dialed in yet. I am seeing LTFT of -.8 in bank 2 at times and I never saw that when I was using straight Shell so that is at least an indication that the mixture is indeed "fatter" as Brian refers to and the car is pulling fuel to adjust. I filled up at a little less that a quarter tank so still dealing with a little E and M in the mix as well. My guess is at least another complete tank before we consider the old blend to "trace amounts".

I know a couple of the other guys have ordered so I'm curious about their experiences. I'm concerned that I have a fuel quality issue coinciding with the switch so I'm not sure I'm providing the best data right now.

Are you doing mostly city or highway driving?

Quote from: SHOdded on August 24, 2015, 10:38:51 PM
Def have to give the car some time to adjust, if it's anything like products that I have logged with my Edge.  Sometimes it takes a 100 miles or so of varied driving to settle in and give consistent trims & readings.  Heck it happens just by switching gas stations!  I went from Shell (top tier, same station) to Safeway (grocery tier) gas, and the logs were pretty wild.  Adding an octane booster like 104+ also elicited similar behavior, though it took less time for the trims to settle in.

I will be installing the ACES IV in my truck, then taking a road trip. Roughly 1200 miles roundtrip. My conversations with Brian were he likes the idea of the constant load on engine while "purging!" Then when I return I will add the ACES to the SHO. I will make another trip just for the burn in. Albeit that trip will only be 300 miles roundtrip it should still allow most everything to be cleaned pretty good.

Dealing with 2 separate stations doesn't help narrow it down, lol.

Luckily the ACES testing has eliminated the E-85 station and I will just go to my old Shell.

No Chevron to try around here.

I got a shiny new tune tonight so I will continue to update as we log and retune.

DX, almost all city with some short hwy blasts....

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 25, 2015, 01:29:09 AM
DX, almost all city with some short hwy blasts....

Being of the ole skool thinking, I have always believed a good blow job does a car good. Meaning a highway trip. Most cars here in L.A. do city driving. Stop n go traffic so dont really get to let the car take a deep breath for long stretch.

Just always my thinking for road trips are awesome for that reason.

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 25, 2015, 01:22:11 AM
Dealing with 2 separate stations doesn't help narrow it down, lol.

Luckily the ACES testing has eliminated the E-85 station and I will just go to my old Shell.

No Chevron to try around here.

I got a shiny new tune tonight so I will continue to update as we log and retune.

I have been watching the dialogue here and one thing I wanted to interject is that we are also getting to the time of the winter fuel bleed.  It is not uncommon for refineries to begin early introduction of winter blended fuels into the pipeline in anticipation of it turning cold.  Typically they don't do this until mid September as they have a drop dead date of October 1.  Ohio gets the fuels that Michigan, Indiana and Kentucky won't certify so we get the butt end of fuels to begin with.

Keep running the ACES IV and allow it to clean out what is in your tank and fuel system/engine.  We delaminate the deposits and then burn them.  First one or even two tanks can take time for the engine system to balance out what it wants to do with the oxygen and hydrogen compounds in ACES IV. 

Remember that winter fuels are full by October 1 nationwide and get progressively worse until it culminates with January being the most worst for performance and then slowly better until they bleed summer RVP fuels in the mid April.  I give all our customers the May 1st to Sept 15th as the performance fuels window at the pump.

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

Good point, Brian!  How easy is it to tell a winter blend is in place, aside from a drop in mpg?  What do you think of the kits that allow you to test ethanol %age at the pump?  Are they useful for this identification?

Quote from: SHOdded on August 25, 2015, 05:22:50 PM
Good point, Brian!  How easy is it to tell a winter blend is in place, aside from a drop in mpg?

What you are looking for is the Reid Vapor pressure.  Typically on the pumps you will see RVP fuel from June 1 to September 15.  This is a low RVP in the 6.3 range so it is less volatile meaning that it is more compressible for your performance use.  By January you could potentially see 12 RVP which means it will vaporize very quickly.  Remember that high vaporizing fuel is terrible for the summer and low RVP is terrible for the winter.  However, when you have a high RVP you also have less BTU value and it burns up faster too while hitting all kinds of knock retard.....hence your reduction in mpg as you stated too.

Here is wiki:

"Reid vapor pressure (RVP) is a common measure of the volatility of gasoline. It is defined as the absolute vapor pressure exerted by a liquid at 100 °F (37.8 °C) as determined by the test method ASTM-D-323. The test method applies to volatile crude oil and volatile nonviscous petroleum liquids, except liquefied petroleum gases.

The matter of vapor pressure is important relating to the function and operation of gasoline powered, especially carbureted, vehicles. High levels of vaporization are desirable for winter starting and operation and lower levels are desirable in avoiding vapor lock during summer heat. Fuel cannot be pumped when there is vapor in the fuel line (summer) and winter starting will be more difficult when liquid gasoline in the combustion chambers has not vaporized. Thus, oil refineries manipulate the Reid Vapor Pressure seasonally specifically to maintain gasoline engine reliability."

What do you think of the kits that allow you to test ethanol %age at the pump?  Are they useful for this identification?

No, ethanol is used more for octane purposes but not for BTU value which has to do with volatility and RVP.  They are good to determine what you have in the fuel and remember that while straight gasoline has 126,000 BTU per gallon, Ethyl alcohol only has 87,500 BTU per gallon.  So the ratio will be % gasoline x 126,000 + % Ethanol x 87,500 = Total BTU.

On testing for ethanol, we used to take a 200 ml test tube and fill it with 100 ml of gasoline and 30 ml of water and put a cork in the top.  Then we would shake it several times and release the pressure under the cork.  If we had 10% alcohol, the affinity to the water would be greater than the affinity to the gasoline so you would end up with 90 ml of gasoline and 40 ml of what looked like water.  This is an easy way to do it without expensive kits.  This is actually what happens in our gasoline tank with the vent.  Very quickly the atmospheric moisture will take your 93 octane fuel and turn it to 83 octane fuel and then we wonder why we have so much Long term knock retard and short term knock retard.  About this time every year I begin to get phone calls about the temperature cooling down but having more knock retard.....this is the reason!

When we put ACES IV in the fuel, it helps to stop the ethanol hygroscopic nature and stabilize the fuel. 

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

Quote from: Dxlnt1 on August 25, 2015, 03:45:43 PM

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 25, 2015, 01:29:09 AM
DX, almost all city with some short hwy blasts....

Being of the ole skool thinking, I have always believed a good blow job does a car good.

IDK about cars but I know they do me a helluva lot of good... ;D

1st tuned datalog with ACES and Quantum Blue

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 26, 2015, 08:47:02 PM

Quote from: Dxlnt1 on August 25, 2015, 03:45:43 PM

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 25, 2015, 01:29:09 AM
DX, almost all city with some short hwy blasts....

Being of the ole skool thinking, I have always believed a good blow job does a car good.

IDK about cars but I know they do me a helluva lot of good... ;D

Im actually shocked it took this long for someone to jump all over that comment.

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 26, 2015, 08:50:54 PM
1st tuned datalog with ACES and Quantum Blue

So are you going to keep us all in suspense??? Or is it just NOT showing on my ipad??

It's there...

I see it now. Guess this thing had to refresh or something. Will look more closely tomorrow.

Something I wanted to mention....There is a huge difference in this car tuned vs the 2013 E30 blend tune. Not that it wasn't powerful and a helluva lot of fun but this is noticeably more responsive. So responsive in fact that at times I feel like my right foot is jacked directly into the ECU.

Torrie tweaked the tune so I will drive the car for a couple days and do another log.

If weather allows I will be at Kil-Kare tomorrow evening as well.

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 27, 2015, 12:55:52 AM
Something I wanted to mention....There is a huge difference in this car tuned vs the 2013 E30 blend tune. Not that it wasn't powerful and a helluva lot of fun but this is noticeably more responsive. So responsive in fact that at times I feel like my right foot is jacked directly into the ECU.

Torrie tweaked the tune so I will drive the car for a couple days and do another log.

If weather allows I will be at Kil-Kare tomorrow evening as well.

Do you contribute some due to the new car being a PP?

Quote from: ajpturbo on August 27, 2015, 02:53:17 AM

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 27, 2015, 12:55:52 AM
Something I wanted to mention....There is a huge difference in this car tuned vs the 2013 E30 blend tune. Not that it wasn't powerful and a helluva lot of fun but this is noticeably more responsive. So responsive in fact that at times I feel like my right foot is jacked directly into the ECU.

Torrie tweaked the tune so I will drive the car for a couple days and do another log.

If weather allows I will be at Kil-Kare tomorrow evening as well.

...or in part at least to the increased energy available in gasoline?

Do you contribute some due to the new car being a PP?

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 27, 2015, 12:55:52 AM
Something I wanted to mention....There is a huge difference in this car tuned vs the 2013 E30 blend tune. Not that it wasn't powerful and a helluva lot of fun but this is noticeably more responsive. So responsive in fact that at times I feel like my right foot is jacked directly into the ECU.

Torrie tweaked the tune so I will drive the car for a couple days and do another log.

If weather allows I will be at Kil-Kare tomorrow evening as well.

It sounds about right.  Remember I mentioned that a hydrocarbon hydrogen reaction is 5000 fps flame speed where a hydrocarbon oxygen reaction is 25 to 75 fps. 

The increase in flame speed coupled with the ability to utilize the fuel efficiently and lubricate post combustion has contributed to this power increase especially using the tuner.  I am sure you are seeing too how smooth the engine is running with the QB in the oil galleries. 

Looking forward to the coolant as that will wick away heat even more and may help you advance the timing further.

Thanks for the update. 

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

Quote from: ajpturbo on August 27, 2015, 02:53:17 AM

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 27, 2015, 12:55:52 AM
Something I wanted to mention....There is a huge difference in this car tuned vs the 2013 E30 blend tune. Not that it wasn't powerful and a helluva lot of fun but this is noticeably more responsive. So responsive in fact that at times I feel like my right foot is jacked directly into the ECU.

Torrie tweaked the tune so I will drive the car for a couple days and do another log.

If weather allows I will be at Kil-Kare tomorrow evening as well.

Do you contribute some due to the new car being a PP?

No, the cars felt virtually the same stock with the exception of more torque steer.

I got out of the 2013 with the stock flash into the 2015. Imo if it wasn't for the heavy duty components, massaging seats, steering wheel, and lower payment, the  trade would have been completed pointless judging on performance between the two.

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 27, 2015, 10:15:34 AM

Quote from: ajpturbo on August 27, 2015, 02:53:17 AM

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 27, 2015, 12:55:52 AM
Something I wanted to mention....There is a huge difference in this car tuned vs the 2013 E30 blend tune. Not that it wasn't powerful and a helluva lot of fun but this is noticeably more responsive. So responsive in fact that at times I feel like my right foot is jacked directly into the ECU.

Torrie tweaked the tune so I will drive the car for a couple days and do another log.

If weather allows I will be at Kil-Kare tomorrow evening as well.

Do you contribute some due to the new car being a PP?

No, the cars felt virtually the same stock with the exception of more torque steer.

I got out of the 2013 with the stock flash into the 2015. Imo if it wasn't for the heavy duty components, massaging seats, steering wheel, and lower payment, the  trade would have been completed pointless judging on performance between the two.

It could possily be the new eagles,softer compound=better traction,also limiting torque steer,just a thought.  Z

Nah, its about how the car respond to pedal input and how quick it revs.

Screenshot from today, 1st tune revision, torque weight 4701. Hardly any KR and that actually wasn't from that pull. Actually have no idea where that popped up at.

Never Mind.

I didn't see the screen shot at first.

Lol, post fail.helps to actually attach.

Notice my LTFT's are actually going negative now.

Fun fact.

Torrie's  tune changed max -KR from -4 to -5

Holy FRP batman!!!

Yeah, its nuts I saw 2750 on the rail last night.

What does zeroing out the STFT and LTFT or perhaps making them negative mean?

Does it imply that the fuel trim is essentially working in default and no compensation is required?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Jwill, Brian talks about making the mixture fatter, or needing less fuel to hit the ecms commanded afr. This is important because that means more fuel headroom and also better fuel economy if you care about that. (I do not😊)

The car now going negative in the long term trims actually shows that is indeed what is happening. When I ran the car previously on shell vpower 93 without the ACES, ltft was always positive, since adding the ACES it continues to move the other way.

I also noticed that my cat temps are higher (50 degrees ish) when I'm pounding on it.

If cat temps follow EGT, then this is also indicative that the mixture is indeed richer.

Hopefully someone smarter than I will chime in on EGT behavior vs cat temps.

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 28, 2015, 08:06:49 PM
Jwill, Brian talks about making the mixture fatter, or needing less fuel to hit the ecms commanded afr. This is important because that means more fuel headroom and also better fuel economy if you care about that.

Yea, that seems logical. 

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 28, 2015, 09:41:56 PM
I also noticed that my cat temps are higher (50 degrees ish) when I'm pounding on it.

If cat temps follow EGT, then this is also indicative that the mixture is indeed richer.

Hopefully someone smarter than I will chime in on EGT behavior vs cat temps.

Remember that the most efficient burn also produces the most power.  Typically on an engine without ACES IV, you have to richen up the fuel mixture to protect the heads or a lean condition....especially with ethanol.....will occur and damage the heads/pistons etc.

Since using ACES IV will richen up the fuel mixture anyway, you can back off the amount of fuel, get a better more powerful burn due to the efficiency and lubricity is imparted copiously/plentifully so that the heads, pistons and valves are not damaged!

6 times less ring and bore wear, 4 times less stem and guide wear and 5 times less valve seat and face damage! 

Worth every penny to do all of that for sure!

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com)   

Are you guys having trouble figuring out how to much ACES IV to add in during each fill up?

Jwill are you trying to do it before or after? You can do both but I think after will be most accurate. Torque will give you a percentage which you can convert, but it is thrown off of the car isnt perfectly level.

Quote from: J-Will on August 31, 2015, 03:02:16 PM
Are you guys having trouble figuring out how to much ACES IV to add in during each fill up?

Basically its just number of gallons added divided by 6. Then I just rounded up to the nearest quarter.

1st tank 19 gallons, divided by 6 was 3.16, so I put in 3.25

And please don't forget to use the special nozzle adapter that came with your car or your expensive ACES will be on the ground!!!!

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 31, 2015, 03:51:11 PM
Jwill are you trying to do it before or after? You can do both but I think after will be most accurate. Torque will give you a percentage which you can convert, but it is thrown off of the car isnt perfectly level.

I don't have the product yet, I'm just planning its usage. And mixing seems like a hassle. Some product make you pour first, then fill up. This one seems a little more forgiving with the order.

Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk

True; with HEET I can add anytime, but with 104+ I am supposed to add before fillup only.  Of course having a saddle type fuel tank with AWD doesn't help matters much!

Its not bad, I just wish the bottle had 1,.5, and .25 graduations.

Brian, does the ACES need shaken like the other products?

Mixing protip....

After putting in your brew of choice, grab the nozzle adapter by the little handle and dip it in the windshield wash reservoir provided at the gas station island. This way you can store it in the vehicle free of chemicals.

Quote from: J-Will on August 31, 2015, 05:15:03 PM

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 31, 2015, 03:51:11 PM
Jwill are you trying to do it before or after? You can do both but I think after will be most accurate. Torque will give you a percentage which you can convert, but it is thrown off of the car isnt perfectly level.

I don't have the product yet, I'm just planning its usage. And mixing seems like a hassle. Some product make you pour first, then fill up. This one seems a little more forgiving with the order.

Sent from my Nexus 9 using Tapatalk

Think of ACES IV in this way.   There is Elmer's Glue and then there is Epoxy Glue.   Elmer's is like all the additives on the shelf.....single phase and works for one thing only.  ACES IV is like Epoxy glue in that this type of glue has a catalyst reaction.  Multiple stages and phases.   

ACES IV doesn't need to be agitated or shaken at all.  It is perfectly fine to put in after you fill up.  We suggest that you fill the tank all the way up initially and then treat the whole tank.  It will catalyze in about 40 seconds just sitting there.  After that point you only treat the fuel that you add.....so 12 gallons....2 oz......15 gallons.....2.5 oz.......18 gallons...3 oz etc.

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com) 

Quote from: SHOdded on August 31, 2015, 05:34:09 PM
True; with HEET I can add anytime

Heet is straight Methanol.  Eventhough it is a dry gas, it is really corrosive!!  ACES IV functions very well as a dry gas without any corrosion.


, but with 104+ I am supposed to add before fillup only.  Of course having a saddle type fuel tank with AWD doesn't help matters much!

Remember that 104+ contains MMT with petroleum distillates as a vehicle.   The manganese is their proprietary additive that makes the plugs impossible to read.  The oxides from MMT are very very abrasive and will erode the cylinders and components over time.  I have seen engines that run this stuff and it is not pretty!   

ACES IV works better and has no manganese.  6 times less ring and bore wear, 4 times less stem and guide wear with 5 times less valve seat and face damage. 

Some things to consider!

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 31, 2015, 05:35:11 PM
Its not bad, I just wish the bottle had 1,.5, and .25 graduations.

The 16 oz bottle has a 1 oz cup, 1/2 oz and you can suppose the 1/4 oz rate.  The 8 oz which you know is easier to carry in cramped quarters has the 1/2 oz and 1/4 oz increments.  Some people choose to use the other side of the bottle and just do a tip and pour.

Brian, does the ACES need shaken like the other products?

No, it does not need to be agitated or shaken.  It is a catalyst that is stable.  Think of ACES IV like the activator for body filler.  Once it is put together, the catalyst reactions occur.

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

Quote from: BND 370 Hemi on September 01, 2015, 12:42:39 AM
Remember that 104+ contains MMT with petroleum distillates as a vehicle.

I tend to agree with you after looking at the plugs when I changed them a few months back.  This was after 4 tankfuls.  Have you had it analyzed for confirmation though?  They keep stating they DON'T use MMT in their formulation.  Is there a "minimum" they can legally slide by with?
http://www.goldeagle.com/brands/104-faqs (http://www.goldeagle.com/brands/104-faqs)
No. 104+® brand products contain neither alcohol nor MMT® Fuel Additive* . MMT® is dangerous to spark plugs, catalytic converters, and OBD (on-board diagnostic) oxygen sensor systems. It is not recommended by vehicle manufacturers, and is considered an environmental hazard.

Could they possibly be using Ferrocene or another organometallic?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrocene (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrocene)

Quote from: SHOdded on September 01, 2015, 05:39:15 AM

Quote from: BND 370 Hemi on September 01, 2015, 12:42:39 AM
Remember that 104+ contains MMT with petroleum distillates as a vehicle.

I tend to agree with you after looking at the plugs when I changed them a few months back.  This was after 4 tankfuls.  Have you had it analyzed for confirmation though?  They keep stating they DON'T use MMT in their formulation.  Is there a "minimum" they can legally slide by with?
http://www.goldeagle.com/brands/104-faqs (http://www.goldeagle.com/brands/104-faqs)
No. 104+® brand products contain neither alcohol nor MMT® Fuel Additive* . MMT® is dangerous to spark plugs, catalytic converters, and OBD (on-board diagnostic) oxygen sensor systems. It is not recommended by vehicle manufacturers, and is considered an environmental hazard.

Could they possibly be using Ferrocene or another organometallic?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrocene (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrocene)

Those pictures do show a metallic in the fuel but doesn't look like a full MMT content.  It could be ferrous picrate like you said.  Any organometallic complex is also a build up product and very bad for fuel systems, combustion in general as it needs a chelate compound that tries to strip it back off and ends up in the oil causing all kinds of wear issues in the oil system.

We have been preaching to many people about not using any metallics at all as they are really bad.   ACES IV contains NO petroleum distillates, polymers, alcohols, acids or metals.

Here are two pictures of a 3.8L V6 running for 100,000 miles on these platinum tipped plugs using our oils and our ACES IV:

(http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww59/370Hemi/100_2692_zps1n8hlaq4.jpg) (http://s705.photobucket.com/user/370Hemi/media/100_2692_zps1n8hlaq4.jpg.html)

(http://i705.photobucket.com/albums/ww59/370Hemi/100_2695_zpshj0r2bcn.jpg) (http://s705.photobucket.com/user/370Hemi/media/100_2695_zpshj0r2bcn.jpg.html)

Even the price for 18 gallons of 104+ comes out to 44.3 cents per gallon where if you use ACES IV in the quart it is 41.6 cents and if you get a gallon form it is 35 cents per gallon.  So our product is not only better but cheaper!

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

I neglected to mention that ANY METALS in the fuel are bad news long term.  We have to add metal deactivation compounds in ACES IV to deal with the normal copper and vanadium that is inherent in the fuels that cause gum, varnish and deposits.

Ferrous Picrate, Ferro organo metallic complexes , any copper, platinum, cerium or rhodium products in any form should be avoided.   They cause such problems that we had to independently test ACES for all of these metals as no metals are allowed if you supply a fuel additive to the military for military vehicles:

AL,Sb,Ba,B,Ca,Cr,Cu,Fe,Pb,K,Mg,Mo,Na,Ni,P,Si,Ag,Sn,Zn,Sr,V,Ti,and Cd all below 1 ppm!

The additives that contain these are also acidic and cause problems with your oils as well. 

These are the facts even though there may be people here that are presently fans of them!

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

Brian,

I took the liberty to upload a profile pic for you.

I hope it is satisfactory.

If you would like something different, email it to me or call me sometime when we are both on and I will walk you through it.

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on September 03, 2015, 05:16:01 PM
Brian,

I took the liberty to upload a profile pic for you.

I hope it is satisfactory.

If you would like something different, email it to me or call me sometime when we are both on and I will walk you through it.

I like it for now.

Let me send you what I was thinking about as we use it on all our oil labels.

Thanks again!

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

Done

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on September 03, 2015, 06:00:17 PM
Done

You are too cool!  What do you think?

LMK

Regards,

Brian

Much better as it better reflects your vendor info.

Looks like a promising product indeed,BTW interesting topic over on the Charger forums years back. Z

Quote from: ZSHO on September 03, 2015, 10:54:28 PM
Looks like a promising product indeed,BTW interesting topic over on the Charger forums years back. Z

Legitimate performance and consistent protection from ACES IV.  Been a vendor at the Charger Forums for over 6 years......since February 2009.

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

Hi Brian,

After 2 tunes knock is still good.....but I am seeing about a 1.25 degree retard for about the last 1k rpm of third (range .25-1.25). Everywhere else was flat or adding timing.

Do you think I should try the 1 oz to 4 gal ratio like the tt v8 Audis we discussed?

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on September 07, 2015, 08:56:59 PM
Hi Brian,

After 2 tunes knock is still good.....but I am seeing about a 1.25 degree retard for about the last 1k rpm of third (range .25-1.25). Everywhere else was flat or adding timing.

Do you think I should try the 1 oz to 4 gal ratio like the tt v8 Audis we discussed?

You can try a 1 oz to 5 gallon ratio and let me know how that works with the new tune.  1.25 is not much with an aggressive tune and the heat in that engine.  Try that and let me know how the results are.  We can always go to 1 oz per 4 if necessary although there is at some point the law of diminishing returns here.

Thanks for the update.

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

Ok, I've also got colder plugs, stat, and quantum blue coolant to add to the mix which I suspect will help as well.

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on September 07, 2015, 08:56:59 PM
Hi Brian,

After 2 tunes knock is still good.....but I am seeing about a 1.25 degree retard for about the last 1k rpm of third (range .25-1.25). Everywhere else was flat or adding timing.

Do you think I should try the 1 oz to 4 gal ratio like the tt v8 Audis we discussed?

That kind of knock retard is where I net my best times at the dragway....almost done with a tank of fuel from a not so trusted source (Marathon), spiked a random KR of +1 only once on the entire tank too...corn is my friend!

Only about 6 weeks from winter blend too :(

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Good reminder on the winter blend, Rich.  Should FIC be added in the rotation to the ACES IV in FoMoCo's ride, Brian?

Quote from: SHOnUup on September 08, 2015, 06:31:13 AM

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on September 07, 2015, 08:56:59 PM
Hi Brian,

After 2 tunes knock is still good.....but I am seeing about a 1.25 degree retard for about the last 1k rpm of third (range .25-1.25). Everywhere else was flat or adding timing.

Do you think I should try the 1 oz to 4 gal ratio like the tt v8 Audis we discussed?

That kind of knock retard is where I net my best times at the dragway....almost done with a tank of fuel from a not so trusted source (Marathon), spiked a random KR of +1 only once on the entire tank too...corn is my friend!

Only about 6 weeks from winter blend too :(

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Actually, Marathon traditionally has the second highest motor octane values on the market after Shell.  Top 3 are Shell, Marathon and Amoco...if you can find a pump with the Amoco sticker on it.  If it has the sticker, it is Amoco gasoline and not BP!

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

I normally use BP, like I haven't used anything but BP for over a year with great success. Couldn't really judge on the overall performance as it has been 90* for the last week...car gets a bit sluggish in the high heat

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Quote from: SHOdded on September 08, 2015, 06:44:20 AM
Good reminder on the winter blend, Rich.  Should FIC be added in the rotation to the ACES IV in FoMoCo's ride, Brian?

Low RVP gasoline from June 1 to September 15th nationwide.  After that, we get higher and higher RVP (Reid Vapor Pressure) so much more volatile and more propensity to detonate!!

The ACES IV-FIC is designed for higher mileage cars that definitely have deposits that need to be cleaned out.  His car is new enough to get clean and then kept clean with regular OBD II CANBUS  Tier 2 Bin 8 ACES IV Gasoline Formula.

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 31, 2015, 03:57:17 PM
And please don't forget to use the special nozzle adapter that came with your car or your expensive ACES will be on the ground!!!!

I dropped my first 2 fillup... Used a 1/2in rubber hose for the third but it was a pain to make it pass the flapper.

Where do I get the adapter?

Quote from: BigPelo on September 22, 2015, 11:26:53 AM

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on August 31, 2015, 03:57:17 PM
And please don't forget to use the special nozzle adapter that came with your car or your expensive ACES will be on the ground!!!!

I dropped my first 2 fillup... Used a 1/2in rubber hose for the third but it was a pain to make it pass the flapper.

Where do I get the adapter?

I haven't used the included nozzle. Seems like a pain in the butt. But Ford has the funnels, I think I paid $10-$20 for mine when they were doing transmission repairs. But then I found it here.

http://www.amazon.com/WirthCo-32855-Funnel-Multi-Purpose-Capless/dp/B00L4816B4/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1442935780&sr=8-2&keywords=ford+capless+funnel (http://www.amazon.com/WirthCo-32855-Funnel-Multi-Purpose-Capless/dp/B00L4816B4/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1442935780&sr=8-2&keywords=ford+capless+funnel)

Amazon has them, I believe.  8U5Z-17B068-B
http://www.amazon.com/Ford-Mercury-Lincoln-Filler-GENUINE/dp/B001H1PZ6U/ (http://www.amazon.com/Ford-Mercury-Lincoln-Filler-GENUINE/dp/B001H1PZ6U/)

EBay even cheaper (last one!  Hurry!  :D)
http://www.ebay.com/itm/FORD-OEM-Fuel-System-Tube-8U5Z17B068B-/321853529369 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/FORD-OEM-Fuel-System-Tube-8U5Z17B068B-/321853529369)
Ships worldwide:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-OEM-Ford-Capless-Fuel-Fill-Funnel-Gas-Filler-Spout-Adapter-Lincoln-/271398758142 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-OEM-Ford-Capless-Fuel-Fill-Funnel-Gas-Filler-Spout-Adapter-Lincoln-/271398758142)

Do you guys not have one in the trunk with the spare tire?

Quote from: nickstewartroc on September 22, 2015, 11:34:56 AM
Do you guys not have one in the trunk with the spare tire?

Yes. Especially now, it always there.

DX, are you logging learned octane, aka octane adjust ratio?

http://stratifiedauto.com/blog/understanding-knock-and-ignition-corrections-in-your-high-performance-ecoboost-engine/ (http://stratifiedauto.com/blog/understanding-knock-and-ignition-corrections-in-your-high-performance-ecoboost-engine/)

"The ECU always listens to the knock sensors and knows which cylinder is knocking while it keeps adding timing. Once it starts to hear knock it reduces ignition timing on a cylinder by cylinder basis and eventually it learns an ignition trim that scales the entire ignition table up or down depending on how much knock it picks up. This trim is called the OAR – the Octane Adjust Ratio. Over time, the closer this value is to -1, the more timing the ECU is adding without hearing knock meaning you have high octane and there is power left on the table. The closer it is to +1, the more knock the ECU is picking up meaning either the octane you are using is poor or the tune is too aggressive or both. So having a peek at your OAR using a logging tool such as the COBB AccessPort ever so often will give you an idea of the fuel quality and how the tune is behaving. ***Keep in mind that the tuner has the ability to adjust how the OAR parameter learns so in some cars OAR will sit at one value and in others it will move around more. If you have concerns, bring it to their attention.***"

There is also a switch in the tune to have the knock sensors add and remove timing to individual cylinders or have the spark trim applied globally to all cylinders if any cylinder hears knock.

I would only use the individual cylinder advance for race cars..the risk /reward for a few hp is worth making sure each cylinder is achieving max pressure all the time...a friend of mine that is a respected tuner this is why a lot of coyote mustangs are dropping cylinder 8 because other tuners like to set the knock sensor that way to outperform other tuners...when the ignition is retarded globally to all cylinders when knock is heard is safer

I dont do ANY logging. I've just started using the obdlink mx for reader with the obdlink software. Im having issues getting everything setup. So will be trynna get that going.

I had the OAR working for a bit on other phone, it was always at -1 as I recall. So just trying to get it right. I bought the WiFi version thinking I could use with Android AND IOS if need be. (iPad) But what a pain!

i went through that quart of ACES IV quick (damn road trip)... time to get a gallon of it

More like a 55 gallon drum, from the sounds of it ;)

Seasons coming to an end for many of us pretty soon.

Any logging with your tuner, track times, dyno #'s coming up from you guys testing this stuff out?

Curious to see any kind of results...

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Rich-

Somewhere in this thread I put up some logs.

Also check out the other thread in the BND section as there is some other info.

I had hoped to have more data and some time slips but that's not looking good as recovery has been slow.

Brian,

I can get ethanol free gas, would it be better to use that with ACES IV?   For in town (Fort Walton Beach, FL) we have several gas stations that serve ethanol free gas.  Another question, if I start off using just ethanol in my SHO, should I initially use the 93 Octane with ACES IV and then switch to the lower octane gas or just use lower from the start?

TIA,
Z

Quote from: Zorin on October 11, 2015, 09:32:19 AM
Brian,

I can get ethanol free gas, would it be better to use that with ACES IV?   For in town (Fort Walton Beach, FL) we have several gas stations that serve ethanol free gas.  Another question, if I start off using just ethanol in my SHO, should I initially use the 93 Octane with ACES IV and then switch to the lower octane gas or just use lower from the start?

TIA,
Z

Is your car stock or tuned?

Do you happen to run Torque for gauges?

A good test for the ACES would be to run 87 on a stock tune with ACES and see where OAR is....

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on October 11, 2015, 12:16:58 PM

Quote from: Zorin on October 11, 2015, 09:32:19 AM
Brian,

I can get ethanol free gas, would it be better to use that with ACES IV?   For in town (Fort Walton Beach, FL) we have several gas stations that serve ethanol free gas.  Another question, if I start off using just ethanol in my SHO, should I initially use the 93 Octane with ACES IV and then switch to the lower octane gas or just use lower from the start?

TIA,
Z

Is your car stock or tuned?

Do you happen to run Torque for gauges?

I guess I should fix my signature, lol.  Currently running LMS 93 Stg 4 plus-3 bar tune, 160 stat, Michelin Pilot Pro Sport 255/45/20s, I don't have an app to run torque as of yet.  Was debating on a meth kit before I saw this post...

Z

Do you have an Android tablet or an Apple device?  Torque Pro will run only on Android devices, so in order to use the custom formulas, you will have to have an Android device handy.

Quote from: SHOdded on October 11, 2015, 01:51:41 PM
Do you have an Android tablet or an Apple device?  Torque Pro will run only on Android devices, so in order to use the custom formulas, you will have to have an Android device handy.

Theoretically, the Android and Apples can read either. Practically, Android VERY reliable using bluetooth. When using WiFi it bites hard. Apples use WiFi without missing a beat. But stumble using bluetooth. Go figure.

I bought WiFi reader cause I wanted best of both. AND I know I will be dumping my Note 4 soon for iPhone. And cant justify 2 different readers due to cost and there varying setups.

Wifi works fine on Android as well, you just need the right OBD II adapter, such as the vGate adapter I have extolled numerous times.  The adapter has worked for me with both Android and Apple devices without a hitch.

Quote from: SHOdded on October 11, 2015, 11:09:18 PM
Wifi works fine on Android as well, you just need the right OBD II adapter, such as the vGate adapter I have extolled numerous times.  The adapter has worked for me with both Android and Apple devices without a hitch.

Maybe so but I haven't had that kind of luck. The obdlink is a good adapter since it reads all buss. Just the hitch with Android and wifi

OBDLink WiFi = Suckyland.  OBDLink Bluetooth = Seventh Heaven.  vGate Wifi = Feelin' pretty darn good wherever I am (apple country or android maze).  In summary.  As confirmed across multiple Android devices from multiple mfrs :)

Quote from: SHOdded on October 11, 2015, 11:53:02 PM
OBDLink WiFi = Suckyland.  OBDLink Bluetooth = Seventh Heaven.  vGate Wifi = Feelin' pretty darn good wherever I am (apple country or android maze).  In summary.  As confirmed across multiple Android devices from multiple mfrs :)

Is this the one you have?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00PFFG1EO?keywords=vgate&qid=1444632348&ref_=sr_1_3&sr=8-3 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00PFFG1EO?keywords=vgate&qid=1444632348&ref_=sr_1_3&sr=8-3)

Or this one?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00PFFG1JE?keywords=vgate&qid=1444632348&ref_=sr_1_7&sr=8-7 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00PFFG1JE?keywords=vgate&qid=1444632348&ref_=sr_1_7&sr=8-7)

Or this?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00R3SXDR4?keywords=vgate%20wifi&qid=1444632658&ref_=sr_1_5&sr=8-5 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00R3SXDR4?keywords=vgate%20wifi&qid=1444632658&ref_=sr_1_5&sr=8-5)

Lastly?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00RMB7ZTY?keywords=vgate%20wifi&qid=1444632765&ref_=sr_1_6&sr=8-6 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00RMB7ZTY?keywords=vgate%20wifi&qid=1444632765&ref_=sr_1_6&sr=8-6)

Maybe for the $30 I would spring for another wifi adapter. Just to have one size fits all

The one I specifically got was this one:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00PFFG1JE (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00PFFG1JE)

This is Version 2 of the device.  There is a Version 3 out, but haven't used it.

Quote from: Zorin on October 11, 2015, 09:32:19 AM
Brian,

I can get ethanol free gas, would it be better to use that with ACES IV?   For in town (Fort Walton Beach, FL) we have several gas stations that serve ethanol free gas.  Another question, if I start off using just ethanol in my SHO, should I initially use the 93 Octane with ACES IV and then switch to the lower octane gas or just use lower from the start?

TIA,
Z

So back to my original post....

Bryans been pretty quiet, if he doesn't chime in I will give him a call.

I tried calling him, but no answer, I will try again later.

Z

Are there any more updates from those who have been using this?

I emailed Brian and haven't heard anything which is weird.

I will post up a data log later.

Fuel mileage has improved from 14.3 to 15.2

No highway except for data log blasts which certainly don't help, same amount of daily beatings.

No scientific method whatsoever except resetting my MPG gauge when I started using the ACES. Also consider I am on an E20 tune and I started ACES with straight 93.

Pretty good, winter gas notwithstanding!

I'm about to order a gallon and i still have a bottle of the race formula I haven't played with yet.

Nice, I was actually going to ask you about this when I PM'ed you. Didn't know if you continued to use it after the E20 tune or if it was just with 93. Wonder how this would do with 87/E20/ACES? Might not be a need to spend the extra 50 or so cents a gallon on the 93. Only Torrie could tell us.

Take a peek at this log.

Car was out of sorts but pay attention to AFR and knock at WOT on the dragstrip after it recovered from hitting the limiter...

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on December 09, 2015, 02:55:59 PM
Take a peek at this log.

Car was out of sorts but pay attention to AFR and knock at WOT on the dragstrip after it recovered from hitting the limiter...

Looks good to me if I am reading it correctly. Looks like it continues to lean it out making more power and adding more timing as it goes! Now try it with 87/E/Aces and lets see if the same thing happens! :) with a proper tune of course.

Also, I haven't done any logging yet but where am i missing fuel rail pressure? I don't see any high pressure fuel readings.

Quote from: Scott4957 on December 09, 2015, 09:39:38 PM

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on December 09, 2015, 02:55:59 PM
Take a peek at this log.

Car was out of sorts but pay attention to AFR and knock at WOT on the dragstrip after it recovered from hitting the limiter...

Looks good to me if I am reading it correctly. Looks like it continues to lean it out making more power and adding more timing as it goes! Now try it with 87/E/Aces and lets see if the same thing happens! :) with a proper tune of course.

Also, I haven't done any logging yet but where am i missing fuel rail pressure? I don't see any high pressure fuel readings.

That log , if its the one he sent me had issues. But didnt seem unhealthy

There is an obd pid called fuel rail pressure...or fuel rear pressure will work but that has to stay in mpa...i like seeing psi....this is for livelink gen 2

Quote from: ajpturbo on December 09, 2015, 10:14:21 PM
There is an obd pid called fuel rail pressure...or fuel rear pressure will work but that has to stay in mpa...i like seeing psi....this is for livelink gen 2

Thats the one, missed it and that it was in MPa. I don't suppose there is an easy way to convert it in Livelink? Anyways, yes there was some weird readings at the front of the log, but I see what he is getting at, looks good.

When u are selecting your items or configure the log on the right you can get a drop down and change units...but not for rear pressure

Quote from: ajpturbo on December 09, 2015, 10:14:21 PM

Quote from: Scott4957 on December 09, 2015, 09:39:38 PM

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on December 09, 2015, 02:55:59 PM
Take a peek at this log.

Car was out of sorts but pay attention to AFR and knock at WOT on the dragstrip after it recovered from hitting the limiter...

Looks good to me if I am reading it correctly. Looks like it continues to lean it out making more power and adding more timing as it goes! Now try it with 87/E/Aces and lets see if the same thing happens! :) with a proper tune of course.

Also, I haven't done any logging yet but where am i missing fuel rail pressure? I don't see any high pressure fuel readings.

That log , if its the one he sent me had issues. But didnt seem unhealthy

There is an obd pid called fuel rail pressure...or fuel rear pressure will work but that has to stay in mpa...i like seeing psi....this is for livelink gen 2

It is that log. And the car definitely had a glitch but at least it provided some interesting data.

It's highly doubtful I'm ever going to take the time experimenting with 87. I have no interest in fuel economy whatsoever. The add packs alone are worth it to me to justify the expense on top tier 93. Maximum power without grenading my engine is what I'm after. If I pick up some MPG along the way, that's just a bonus.

My experiences and research so far tell me that there is probably MPGs to be had experimenting with ultralean part throttle and cruise operation.

I am glad that someone was able to scientifically qualify what I had been saying all along.

My experience with ACES is good. It is allowing me to run the 93 tune with only 91 fuel available. And the difference between those tunes is night and day.

On my truck, (2004 Yukon XL) I am seemingly picking up roughly 2 mpg using the ACES.

Mr. T, I do you notice your LOR and LTFT numbers all over the place? I have seen LOR go to -5 but KR stays maybe -2. The LTFT numbers are like a digital readout all over the place. My thinking is maybe the ECU cannot interpret the LOR with the ACES. But all other performance eta is good.

Who is Mr T?

Uh, you! Lol.

You can get psi from MPa by multiplying by 145.0377 inside the CSV.  There is a slight knock towards the end.  Max FRP turns out to be nearly 2700 psi, min around 150 in this log, so looks good.  FRP does seem to drop a bit when the knock shows up at around 100 mph.  Doesn't seem likely, but maybe the ACES not being so effective at higher speeds?

BTW:  Their Mr T had a fear of flying, our Mr T does not LOL ...

Quote from: Dxlnt1 on December 10, 2015, 12:09:47 AM
I am glad that someone was able to scientifically qualify what I had been saying all along.

My experience with ACES is good. It is allowing me to run the 93 tune with only 91 fuel available. And the difference between those tunes is night and day.

On my truck, (2004 Yukon XL) I am seemingly picking up roughly 2 mpg using the ACES.

Mr. T, I do you notice your LOR and LTFT numbers all over the place? I have seen LOR go to -5 but KR stays maybe -2. The LTFT numbers are like a digital readout all over the place. My thinking is maybe the ECU cannot interpret the LOR with the ACES. But all other performance eta is good.

Do you mean -0.5 for LOR?  It should never got to "-5" unless you are using a different formula?  LOR isn't actually measured but inferred from knock so I don't see how ACES could directly impact your LOR value or prevent the ECU from adjusting it.  If you are getting excessive knock the ECU will dial back the LOR...

FoMoCoSHO  - I know we've discussed this before but I have actually been playing with LOR quite a bit lately and if I hit +4 or greater KR the car instantly adjust the LOR...Same is true for -4 KR (or if you are using ignition correction then switch those numbers around...)  I believe you said your car had to see knock for some time before LOR was adjusted so I'm starting to think it is adjustable in the tune - which would hardly be surprising.  Maybe LME is just taking LOR down right away if it sees knock...

Oar is -1 and never moves.

Trims are stable and lambda is set for 13.54:1

Attached pic is idle after warmup. Cruise is same. Car is still removing fuel especially at startup and a bunch during non shutoff decel.

I noticed the other day that there are min and max values for LOR in the tune...stock is -1 and 1

Quote from: ajpturbo on December 10, 2015, 09:50:45 AM
I noticed the other day that there are min and max values for LOR in the tune...stock is -1 and 1

Thank you for clarifying that. Some of these formulas are goofy which worries me some aren't getting correct data.

Is it called LOR learned octane ratio or oar octane adjust ratio in the ecm?

Quote from: ecoboostsho on December 10, 2015, 08:54:38 AM

Quote from: Dxlnt1 on December 10, 2015, 12:09:47 AM
I am glad that someone was able to scientifically qualify what I had been saying all along.

My experience with ACES is good. It is allowing me to run the 93 tune with only 91 fuel available. And the difference between those tunes is night and day.

On my truck, (2004 Yukon XL) I am seemingly picking up roughly 2 mpg using the ACES.

Mr. T, I do you notice your LOR and LTFT numbers all over the place? I have seen LOR go to -5 but KR stays maybe -2. The LTFT numbers are like a digital readout all over the place. My thinking is maybe the ECU cannot interpret the LOR with the ACES. But all other performance eta is good.

Do you mean -0.5 for LOR?  It should never got to "-5" unless you are using a different formula?  LOR isn't actually measured but inferred from knock so I don't see how ACES could directly impact your LOR value or prevent the ECU from adjusting it.  If you are getting excessive knock the ECU will dial back the LOR...

FoMoCoSHO  - I know we've discussed this before but I have actually been playing with LOR quite a bit lately and if I hit +4 or greater KR the car instantly adjust the LOR...Same is true for -4 KR (or if you are using ignition correction then switch those numbers around...)  I believe you said your car had to see knock for some time before LOR was adjusted so I'm starting to think it is adjustable in the tune - which would hardly be surprising.  Maybe LME is just taking LOR down right away if it sees knock...

ACES suppresses knock so id say it directly impacts LOR. Maybe ajp can tell us what stock behavior calls for. Knock hasn't affected LOR for me either car tuned or stock. A +7 on the 2013 didn't cause it to change. The way the car is now, KR is rare and a small amount.

I would like to know how it is supposed to behave though. When I bought the car it was at plus one until I added 93 and then it started moving to -1 so I'm confident it is functioning.

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on December 10, 2015, 10:24:26 AM

Quote from: ecoboostsho on December 10, 2015, 08:54:38 AM

Quote from: Dxlnt1 on December 10, 2015, 12:09:47 AM
I am glad that someone was able to scientifically qualify what I had been saying all along.

My experience with ACES is good. It is allowing me to run the 93 tune with only 91 fuel available. And the difference between those tunes is night and day.

On my truck, (2004 Yukon XL) I am seemingly picking up roughly 2 mpg using the ACES.

Mr. T, I do you notice your LOR and LTFT numbers all over the place? I have seen LOR go to -5 but KR stays maybe -2. The LTFT numbers are like a digital readout all over the place. My thinking is maybe the ECU cannot interpret the LOR with the ACES. But all other performance eta is good.

Do you mean -0.5 for LOR?  It should never got to "-5" unless you are using a different formula?  LOR isn't actually measured but inferred from knock so I don't see how ACES could directly impact your LOR value or prevent the ECU from adjusting it.  If you are getting excessive knock the ECU will dial back the LOR...

FoMoCoSHO  - I know we've discussed this before but I have actually been playing with LOR quite a bit lately and if I hit +4 or greater KR the car instantly adjust the LOR...Same is true for -4 KR (or if you are using ignition correction then switch those numbers around...)  I believe you said your car had to see knock for some time before LOR was adjusted so I'm starting to think it is adjustable in the tune - which would hardly be surprising.  Maybe LME is just taking LOR down right away if it sees knock...

ACES suppresses knock so id say it directly impacts LOR. Maybe ajp can tell us what stock behavior calls for. Knock hasn't affected LOR for me either car tuned or stock. A +7 on the 2013 didn't cause it to change. The way the car is now, KR is rare and a small amount.

I would like to know how it is supposed to behave though. When I bought the car it was at plus one until I added 93 and then it started moving to -1 so I'm confident it is functioning.

I think we are saying the same thing - I just meant that there isn't an actual Octane Sensor (which I know you know)- Aces affects knock which in turn affects LOR - to me that isn't direct but I get what you are saying. :)

I would definitely be interested in anything AJP can tell us...I would like to understand how it works.

Ive havent spent anytime looking at lor like u guys have...i basically check my knock sensor in my logs ..basically the tune was set up for 91...the oem left some headroom for spark advance that the knock sensor handles pretty quickly...then that trend is represented in lor which is like a global change applied to the spark tables...

I read lor like stft and ltft...the further from 0 then the more work that you need to the base table values...i could be wrong but thats how i see it

Ive read that -1 is good...but to me ..i would want to add a little spark so its not relying on the adaptives and learning...that way immediately after a reflash you are closer to where u need to be rather than having to wait

Thank you. That makes sense to me and is how I at least believed it worked. I am still curious if there is any indication in the ECU about what levels of knock actually trigger a LOR adjustment and if they are adjustable as that would account for our different experiences...

Quote from: ecoboostsho on December 10, 2015, 10:46:47 AM

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on December 10, 2015, 10:24:26 AM

Quote from: ecoboostsho on December 10, 2015, 08:54:38 AM

Quote from: Dxlnt1 on December 10, 2015, 12:09:47 AM
I am glad that someone was able to scientifically qualify what I had been saying all along.

My experience with ACES is good. It is allowing me to run the 93 tune with only 91 fuel available. And the difference between those tunes is night and day.

On my truck, (2004 Yukon XL) I am seemingly picking up roughly 2 mpg using the ACES.

Mr. T, I do you notice your LOR and LTFT numbers all over the place? I have seen LOR go to -5 but KR stays maybe -2. The LTFT numbers are like a digital readout all over the place. My thinking is maybe the ECU cannot interpret the LOR with the ACES. But all other performance eta is good.

Do you mean -0.5 for LOR?  It should never got to "-5" unless you are using a different formula?  LOR isn't actually measured but inferred from knock so I don't see how ACES could directly impact your LOR value or prevent the ECU from adjusting it.  If you are getting excessive knock the ECU will dial back the LOR...

FoMoCoSHO  - I know we've discussed this before but I have actually been playing with LOR quite a bit lately and if I hit +4 or greater KR the car instantly adjust the LOR...Same is true for -4 KR (or if you are using ignition correction then switch those numbers around...)  I believe you said your car had to see knock for some time before LOR was adjusted so I'm starting to think it is adjustable in the tune - which would hardly be surprising.  Maybe LME is just taking LOR down right away if it sees knock...

ACES suppresses knock so id say it directly impacts LOR. Maybe ajp can tell us what stock behavior calls for. Knock hasn't affected LOR for me either car tuned or stock. A +7 on the 2013 didn't cause it to change. The way the car is now, KR is rare and a small amount.

I would like to know how it is supposed to behave though. When I bought the car it was at plus one until I added 93 and then it started moving to -1 so I'm confident it is functioning.

I think we are saying the same thing - I just meant that there isn't an actual Octane Sensor (which I know you know)- Aces affects knock which in turn affects LOR - to me that isn't direct but I get what you are saying. :)

I would definitely be interested in anything AJP can tell us...I would like to understand how it works.

There are a couple of snippets from Cobb and  Stratified in the tuning section.

Quote from: ecoboostsho on December 10, 2015, 11:17:39 AM
Thank you. That makes sense to me and is how I at least believed it worked. I am still curious if there is any indication in the ECU about what levels of knock actually trigger a LOR adjustment and if they are adjustable as that would account for our different experiences...

That I don't know. I haven't seen any thresholds for that but I'll take a look sometime I think that may be hard coded stuff and or algorithms that aren't exposed

Quote from: ecoboostsho on December 10, 2015, 08:54:38 AM

Quote from: Dxlnt1 on December 10, 2015, 12:09:47 AM
I am glad that someone was able to scientifically qualify what I had been saying all along.

My experience with ACES is good. It is allowing me to run the 93 tune with only 91 fuel available. And the difference between those tunes is night and day.

On my truck, (2004 Yukon XL) I am seemingly picking up roughly 2 mpg using the ACES.

Mr. T, I do you notice your LOR and LTFT numbers all over the place? I have seen LOR go to -5 but KR stays maybe -2. The LTFT numbers are like a digital readout all over the place. My thinking is maybe the ECU cannot interpret the LOR with the ACES. But all other performance eta is good.

Do you mean -0.5 for LOR?  It should never got to "-5" unless you are using a different formula?  LOR isn't actually measured but inferred from knock so I don't see how ACES could directly impact your LOR value or prevent the ECU from adjusting it.  If you are getting excessive knock the ECU will dial back the LOR...

FoMoCoSHO  - I know we've discussed this before but I have actually been playing with LOR quite a bit lately and if I hit +4 or greater KR the car instantly adjust the LOR...Same is true for -4 KR (or if you are using ignition correction then switch those numbers around...)  I believe you said your car had to see knock for some time before LOR was adjusted so I'm starting to think it is adjustable in the tune - which would hardly be surprising.  Maybe LME is just taking LOR down right away if it sees knock...

You are right. -.5 is the lowest rather highest LOR value I have seen. But the KR value is negative number 98% of time. Only time it goes positive is on deceleration. Which is consistent with log file here too.

I thought the LOR was an actual sensor that was reading fuel quality. If it is or it isn't, my theory was whatever sensor is making the initial read for it, because of the ACES maybe it is just dirty or unclear how to read it. The only time the LOR does that is usually upon refueling. THe LOR will always read different. In my case though, my car will sit for a few days after I refill. SO when I come back to it then it read the -1 again.

My understanding also ACES does NOT suppress knock, it enhances LOR. Then the ECU is tries to advance timing until knock is detected. Am I missing something?

I'm 95% confident (hey I could be wrong!) that there isn't an Octane sensor.  Perhaps someone who really knows can chime in.  From everything I've seen LOR is "inferred" based on the engine's ability at different throttle positions to not knock.  If it can advance timing and not see knock at various load levels then it "assumes" that you must be running a higher octane fuel and it will advance the LOR so you get to run more timing.  If it sees too much knock then again the ECU assumes you've put in some craptastic gas and moves the LOR in the appropriate direction.

If that is how it works then ACES would HAVE to prevent knock to enhance LOR since that is the only way it can affect it.  There might be other variables involved with LOR though but again I don't think an actual Octane sensor enters in to the picture.  That said I have no idea what ACES claims to do so I can't comment. 

It would not surprise me if the car paid particular attention to knock and adjusting the LOR value right after you fill up.  That would trigger the algorithm in the ECU since you obviously just put new gas in.

I am basing most of observations off of this article:
http://www.cobbtuning.com/ford-ecoboost-and-the-octane-adjust-ratio-monitor/ (http://www.cobbtuning.com/ford-ecoboost-and-the-octane-adjust-ratio-monitor/)

Quote from: ecoboostsho on December 11, 2015, 09:23:25 AM
I'm 95% confident (hey I could be wrong!) that there isn't an Octane sensor.  Perhaps someone who really knows can chime in.  From everything I've seen LOR is "inferred" based on the engine's ability at different throttle positions to not knock.  If it can advance timing and not see knock at various load levels then it "assumes" that you must be running a higher octane fuel and it will advance the LOR so you get to run more timing.  If it sees too much knock then again the ECU assumes you've put in some craptastic gas and moves the LOR in the appropriate direction.

If that is how it works then ACES would HAVE to prevent knock to enhance LOR since that is the only way it can affect it.  There might be other variables involved with LOR though but again I don't think an actual Octane sensor enters in to the picture.  That said I have no idea what ACES claims to do so I can't comment. 

It would not surprise me if the car paid particular attention to knock and adjusting the LOR value right after you fill up.  That would trigger the algorithm in the ECU since you obviously just put new gas in.

I am basing most of observations off of this article:
http://www.cobbtuning.com/ford-ecoboost-and-the-octane-adjust-ratio-monitor/ (http://www.cobbtuning.com/ford-ecoboost-and-the-octane-adjust-ratio-monitor/)

Im pretty sure you are right about lack of actual octane sensor. And I know we splitting hairs here, but you can't put the cart before the horse. The LOR has to be seen BEFORE timing can be adjusted. A crappy LOR and no knock present nets more timing. But hi number of knocks and a superior LOR nets less timing. If ALL of the "protective" features built into the ECU are calculations, inferred, or theoretical any glitch in the primary sensor (there would have to be at least 1 physical sensor) used for calculation, the ECU fail to safe mode and NOT run. Theoretically.

I also don't believe throttle position directly affects ANY performance parameter. That is a calibration and variable used for fuel delivery/demand. (I guess that does affect performance huh lol). 100% throttle and inadequate fuel delivery or rail pressure per flow curve nets engine cutting power. Theoretically!

I have seen this on my GMC when throttle position and throttle body doesn't calibrate properly at startup. So it disables the drive by wire and truck becomes useless until reset.

All of the sensors and calibrations are part of a HUGE formula to determine and dictate load and demand.

There is no octane sensor. Octane is merely a fuels resistance to knock.  The car uses algorithms based on raw ks output combined with deductive fuel logic to determine fuel composition and octane.

No octane sensor in these cars, knock-inferred only.  You get "fuel composition" sensors if Ford originally built the vehicle to run E85 or otherwise be an FFV.  Examples of such sensors are Ford Part 9C044-AA and 9C044-BA, made for the FFV Ranger 3.0L engine.

P0178 Description

Fuel Composition Sensors are used to determine the amount of ethanol alcohol in the gasoline. Normally, a gasoline engine should not have more than 10% ethanol alcohol in the fuel for proper operation. Some vehicles have a Flexible Fuel (FF) system on them that allow them to run on up to 85% ethanol alcohol in the fuel. The fuel composition sensor sends a frequency modulated signal to the engine controller which is proportional to the alcohol content of the fuel. The injector pulse width and the ignition timing are modified for the increased alcohol content. It takes almost twice the amount of alcohol compared to gasoline to produce the same power.

Read more: http://www.helpforcars.net/obd_codes/p0178.html (http://www.helpforcars.net/obd_codes/p0178.html)

AND you realize there is no knock sensor either! Only a microphone listening for certain frequencies in exhaust. As I stated the fuel is NOT changed but the ignition curve is modified.

http://stratifiedauto.com/blog/understanding-knock-and-ignition-corrections-in-your-high-performance-ecoboost-engine/ (http://stratifiedauto.com/blog/understanding-knock-and-ignition-corrections-in-your-high-performance-ecoboost-engine/)

Quote from: Dxlnt1 on December 11, 2015, 02:24:55 PM
AND you realize there is no knock sensor either! Only a microphone listening for certain frequencies in exhaust. As I stated the fuel is NOT changed but the ignition curve is modified.

http://stratifiedauto.com/blog/understanding-knock-and-ignition-corrections-in-your-high-performance-ecoboost-engine/ (http://stratifiedauto.com/blog/understanding-knock-and-ignition-corrections-in-your-high-performance-ecoboost-engine/)

I think this is something that many people new to tuning do not realize and should be pointed out in a "about tuning" sticky. I sometimes see people obsessing over some random KR event, they need to realize that road noise, a bump in the road, road debris etc can set off the knock sensor. I do my pulls the same place every time, imagine if there was a bump in that road and I was not aware it was the cause of a KR event LOL.  Its one of many reasons you can get a better tune on the Dyno.

Quote from: Scott4957 on December 11, 2015, 02:35:20 PM

Quote from: Dxlnt1 on December 11, 2015, 02:24:55 PM
AND you realize there is no knock sensor either! Only a microphone listening for certain frequencies in exhaust. As I stated the fuel is NOT changed but the ignition curve is modified.

http://stratifiedauto.com/blog/understanding-knock-and-ignition-corrections-in-your-high-performance-ecoboost-engine/ (http://stratifiedauto.com/blog/understanding-knock-and-ignition-corrections-in-your-high-performance-ecoboost-engine/)

I think this is something that many people new to tuning do not realize and should be pointed out in a "about tuning" sticky. I sometimes see people obsessing over some random KR event, they need to realize that road noise, a bump in the road, road debris etc can set off the knock sensor. I do my pulls the same place every time, imagine if there was a bump in that road and I was not aware it was the cause of a KR event LOL.  Its one of many reasons you can get a better tune on the Dyno.

I disagree with that last statement completely.  Data logs and timeslips are highly effective over a much broader range of operating conditions.

That's true. A better tune is not necessarily one that makes peak power. I should have said you can make peak power "just a number"

Well there IS a knock sensor...it just happens to be a microphone. Agreed on random KR events though.  I used to have knock spikes at the shift in a previous car but determined that it was just the noise from shifting setting off the "knock" sensor.  That said knock sensors and the software that processes the signal have gotten significantly better at identifying these types of events.  I trust mine. ;)

Quote from: Dxlnt1 on December 11, 2015, 02:24:55 PM
AND you realize there is no knock sensor either! Only a microphone listening for certain frequencies in exhaust. As I stated the fuel is NOT changed but the ignition curve is modified.
http://stratifiedauto.com/blog/understanding-knock-and-ignition-corrections-in-your-high-performance-ecoboost-engine/ (http://stratifiedauto.com/blog/understanding-knock-and-ignition-corrections-in-your-high-performance-ecoboost-engine/)

"Modern cars such as the one above have well tuned "microphones" called knock sensors that pick up on these sounds and react very quickly to stop detonation when it starts. The 4 cylinder Ecoboost in the Focus ST has two of these little guys."

My civic has 4 !...

Quote from: ajpturbo link=topic=5087.msg88967#msg88967 date=1449 883839
My civic has 4 !...

AJ you mean 4 cylinders right.lol  Z    ;)

Quote from: Scott4957 on December 11, 2015, 02:35:20 PM

Quote from: Dxlnt1 on December 11, 2015, 02:24:55 PM
AND you realize there is no knock sensor either! Only a microphone listening for certain frequencies in exhaust. As I stated the fuel is NOT changed but the ignition curve is modified.

http://stratifiedauto.com/blog/understanding-knock-and-ignition-corrections-in-your-high-performance-ecoboost-engine/ (http://stratifiedauto.com/blog/understanding-knock-and-ignition-corrections-in-your-high-performance-ecoboost-engine/)

I think this is something that many people new to tuning do not realize and should be pointed out in a "about tuning" sticky. I sometimes see people obsessing over some random KR event, they need to realize that road noise, a bump in the road, road debris etc can set off the knock sensor. I do my pulls the same place every time, imagine if there was a bump in that road and I was not aware it was the cause of a KR event LOL.  Its one of many reasons you can get a better tune on the Dyno.

Little bit off topic but there is also a RRD Rough road detection system to eliminate false misfire indications due to the road condition,the RRD uses data from the ABS Wheel speed sensors for estimating the severity of the rough road.  Z

Quote from: ZSHO on December 12, 2015, 05:55:53 AM

Quote from: ajpturbo link=topic=5087.msg88967#msg88967 date=1449 883839
My civic has 4 !...

AJ you mean 4 cylinders right.lol  Z    ;)

Hell no...4 knock sensors.....one for each cylinder lol

The Japanese DO know overkill, wouldn't put it past them :)

Just ordered 2.5 gallons, liquid crack for car guys!

Nice! Still working through the revisions on my 93 3bar with Torrie. I will play with this in future tunes. I want to start on an E20 after we finish this crap winter gas 93 tune.

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on December 21, 2015, 09:32:52 PM
Just ordered 2.5 gallons, liquid crack for car guys!

Got my fix a few weeks ago. Had long talk with Brian about my experiences. Waiting for the summer blends to come through to test harder what the ACES can or will do. FYI, the batch I received was clear in color compared with the others that have the yellowish tint/color to them. Brian says he moving away from the dye that was added. Other companies are claiming to have something like his product and/or something just as good, just less expensive. SO he is trying to assure his product stands out.

We are talking I may experiment with his racing blend to see if there are any additional gains to be had from it. Maybe some, Maybe none. But I want to find a dyno shop that can dyno AWD cars

I goofed and ran myself out.

I'm gonna throw 4 or 5 ounces of the race concentrate in and see what happens.

Hopefully I can get a dry day so I can grab a log with it.

So you already have the race formula?

If so, I am definitely interested in the results.

Curious, has anyone did a plug check yet.  I would like to see what the plugs look like.

Thanks

Quote from: Dxlnt1 on December 22, 2015, 02:46:30 AM
So you already have the race formula?

If so, I am definitely interested in the results.

Well of course, lol...will let you know it goes in today.

Quote from: bamsho on December 22, 2015, 04:55:53 AM
Curious, has anyone did a plug check yet.  I would like to see what the plugs look like.

Thanks

I may switch to colder plugs so I will take pics if I do.

So put 5 ounces in the tank today and I was kind of surprised, after about 10 minutes of driving for the trims to level it it became immediately apparent the car is pulling fuel everywhere long term and short term. Light cruise LT is now -1.6, and ST is still pulling so I expect LT will continue to move backwards. What's interesting is that with the regular ACES this has been a fairly slow slide backwards. This was immediate. At idle I'm seeing mins of just under 200 psi on the rail. Min with regular ACES was around 210.

5 oz? Does it require that much more? Thats almost twice as much as regular ACES. (1:6)

Quote from: Dxlnt1 on December 22, 2015, 07:31:26 PM
5 oz? Does it require that much more? Thats almost twice as much as regular ACES. (1:6)

Well, consider this blend designed for racing with an effective octane of 120. IIRC its intended use is 1oz per gallon. This is the first use in this specific application so Brian really didn't know exactly how it was going to behave so this is the starting point. My intention was just to use this till the ACES got here but that is on hold for now till I play with this a bit more and see how it plays out. At this point I figure it could go either way regarding the sweet spot of volume.

120??? Holy canoli!!!

Quote from: FoMoCoSHO on December 22, 2015, 07:42:48 PM

Quote from: Dxlnt1 on December 22, 2015, 07:31:26 PM
5 oz? Does it require that much more? Thats almost twice as much as regular ACES. (1:6)

Well, consider this blend designed for racing with an effective octane of 120. IIRC its intended use is 1oz per gallon. This is the first use in this specific application so Brian really didn't know exactly how it was going to behave so this is the starting point. My intention was just to use this till the ACES got here but that is on hold for now till I play with this a bit more and see how it plays out. At this point I figure it could go either way regarding the sweet spot of volume.

That sounds awesome

Yes, the ACES IV-P is what he is talking about.  It is designed to create more utilization of BTU and increase octane value so that the car can take more advantage of the energy locked in the fuel.  This produces more throttle response, power, torque and has more lubricity as well.

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com) 

Quote from: BND 370 Hemi on February 03, 2016, 02:30:26 PM
Yes, the ACES IV-P is what he is talking about.  It is designed to create more utilization of BTU and increase octane value so that the car can take more advantage of the energy locked in the fuel.  This produces more throttle response, power, torque and has more lubricity as well.

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

Hey stranger, welcome back!

Yea, been really busy with orders for people.  We have a lot of SHO repeat customers that are very happy with ACES IV and the lubricants.  Slowly but surely we have been doing other units.....differentials, transfer cases, coolant and the like. 

Will probably soon be doing the 6F55 transmissions.  Have the fluid and filters ready when people want to go that route....upgrading the fluids for higher performance than OEM.

Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com (http://www.bndautomotive.com)

One Porsche user's experience
http://rennlist.com/forums/911-forum/672193-aces-iv-additive-experiment.html (http://rennlist.com/forums/911-forum/672193-aces-iv-additive-experiment.html)

Contacted BND tonight.  Brian called shortly after.  Knowledgeable guy!  I had to work but he and I will be following up tomorrow for my first order, of many to come I'm sure.

Just received my first shipment.  Got one EFI for the SHO and some FIC for my 2001 Crown Vic.

I'll update on impressions.  As of today prior to using ACES my mileage avg was 16.4.

I need to re-up as well.

Ok, seat of the pants dyno tells me I have more low end.  Without changing anything including me being "that guy" at lights and finding my spot in traffic, my MPG is now 16.9.

It could be all in my head but between my current Unleashed tune and ACES (now) I feel quicker.

I'll attempt to get some real times (my son is my time keeper), I'll do some 0-60's.  I'll let you know.

Best part is as I add my "add-ons", I will keep track.

Sidebar, I ruptured a bicep tendon and need surgery so be patient for actual install updates.

:o  Sorry to hear, get well soon!

It's just a pain in the butt to have a cast on my right arm and then have to baby it for 6-8 wks.

Got to get it done, so, is what it is.

Quote from: jbrown9999 on February 20, 2018, 05:36:53 PM
It's just a pain in the butt to have a cast on my right arm and then have to baby it for 6-8 wks.

Got to get it done, so, is what it is.

Been there. Broke my elbow and tore off one of my Triceps on 9/11/17 playing hockey. Elbow pad malfunction......

Yikes.  Cuddling my joints right now.  LOL