Quote:
Originally Posted by Needsdecaf
What's to say we haven't had conversations about this that I can't share specifics to but if you read between the lines, you'll see that I'm not talking out my wazoo? You want to hang your hat on this study, by all means go ahead. Her company is on the Top Tier list so it's not like I'm trying to discredit it for any reason. Solely to tell people to not blindly accept "research" without asking a few questions. Kind of reminds me of the quote from Tommy Boy: "Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time."
Just because it was a study, doesn't mean you should blindly accept it.
|
I'm not blindly accepting it, it's been widely thrown around the industry and media and broadly accepted to be valid. Likewise, I'm not blindly accepting some random person on the Internet telling me their SO works for some company that claims to have such inside scoop/knowledge that the entire system is bullshit.
If you want to claim it's not valid, show up and provide some hard data.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Needsdecaf
In this case the "who conducted" is AAA, who I trust. But who is paying for it? Top Tier is. They aren't even shy about it. Says right on their website. They even call their participating companies "sponsors". You PAY to be in this group and to fly the logo. If you don't think that doesn't fit an agenda, well,  : |
You're still missing the point that the *automakers* are the sponsors and the *gas companies* are the ones who have to pay to certify. These are mutually exclusive parties who both do not want to have to do this but feel it necessary to protect their own bottom lines. The automakers get to require higher quality fuel and the fuel makers get to charge more for their fuel. You think the gas companies actually *want* to pay for certification even if it's just to have the brand? If it were their way, they'd produce the literal bottom tier EPA minimum crap and still charge the same amount, yet they pay for the certification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Needsdecaf
So do I think this is complete made up BS? No. Not at all. I recognize that this is something companies do to sell product and I hold no ill will. I've worked for public companies, as does my wife and I don't think "BIG" anything is real. You will find no tin hats in my closet. But do I think it's mostly marketing driven, and do I think you're likely to get similar results without having to look for "Top Tier" branding? Yup.
|
So...you don't think it's compete made up BS, but you don't believe the study published to support it and calling it mostly marketing...
Quote:
Originally Posted by geko29
The study is a little bit flawed, but more importantly it's totally irrelevant for most modern cars. The first issue is that they specifically chose a 25-year-old engine that has a known design defect that causes it to create a tremendous amount of valve deposits. So if you have this particular Ford 2.3L engine, its definitely gospel.
More broadly however, the only test in which TT fuel outperformed non-TT fuel was in the valve deposit test. But most modern cars (including ours) have direct injection. So the valve deposit test is utterly irrelevant, because no fuel ever passes over the valves. It is literally impossible for fuel choice to have an impact on valve deposits in these engines, except for an edge case of one specific additive class (which is not in the TT specification) which survives the combustion process and could potentially pass by the valves in extremely limited quantity due to EGR.
So that leaves us with the other two tests: Piston and Head deposits. In both of these tests, TT fuel performed marginally worse than non-TT fuel.
|
Just because the engine is known for valve deposits doesn't mean it won't help other engines.
The fact is, they came to the conclusion that total engine deposits were much lower TT vs non-TT, and the difference itself was different than just singling out intake valve deposits, indicating it can be better for other, DI-relevant engine components.
Even though the piston and head deposits performed marginally worse, one TT-qualified fuel did perform significantly better on the head test. This indicates that there can be a formula where the fuel performs best in all scenarios. Perhaps they just don't use that for cost reasons or didn't figure it out at the time, we don't know.
I think we've said all there is to say on this topic. Bottom line, brand doesn't matter, which was the original question of the thread.
