First off, there's a WORLD of difference between our 91 octane in California and 93 octane most of you can get. It's way more than just two octane points as far as timing goes. The reason I disagree is because I choose to believe the guy who actually invented the stuff over a magazine article. Really as simple as that. If the inventor says it can't be done and the sales guys are wrong, plus my own testing backs him up it's what I believe.

Think about something else. If this unleaded formula was as effective in unleaded formula as the leaded version (which is what you're claiming, 5.5 points for 32 ounces in 10 gallons of gas) why then in race gas cannot unleaded gas be anywhere near the octane level of leaded race gas? I mean there's 10+ full points difference between the two. Reason is the lead, and obviously the unleaded version doesn't have any. So how can the unleaded version equal the leaded version?

If it works for you then by all means use it. It may be good enough on 93 octane to be useful, but on this crap 91 in my state it doesn't allow the timing for what they say the octane will be. I even tried a batch of Xylene and then later unleaded 104 octane gas mixed to approximate 96-97 octane (no Torco) and I could run all kinds of timing. Run that out, add 7-8 gallons of 91 and a can of Torco and the detonation started immediately. And I mean detonated bad, not light.

Bottom line, my experience with 91 octane says it doesn't work as claimed, their inventor says the unleaded doesn't work as claimed (2-3 points max with double dosage) and substituting race gas or Xylene mixed in to get to the range the Torco is supposed to be makes a world of difference in how much timing you can run. It was not even comparable in my experience.

Jody

 

I have asked Torco about the number of octane points their unleaded version raises 93 octane fuel. They have NOT got back to me with any answers. As far as I'm concerned I will wait and see what they say...

 

Nobody will believe this

 

Jody, please ready my post #39 again. It wasn't a magazine article. It wasn't sponsored by Torco. It was an individual named J.B. who owns a Corvette and Auto-X's for sport/fun. He himself wanted to know what 32 oz of Torco Accelerator Unleaded mixed with 10 gallons of California 91 octane would raise his specific octane to, not 93 octane, but California 91 octane! He sent the sample to an independent lab, Saybolt in Carson, CA, and they tested RON and MON. Their test concluded the mix was 96.5 octane (101.2 RON and 91.8 MON). Again, if you would like to view the analytical report, it's here: http://www.jbsblownc5.net/html/torco1.html

Irregardless of the guy that claimed to be the maker of Torco told you, his claim of only 2 to 3 points gained max for the Unleaded version is proven wrong per this test, and Torco's literature they're giving out for the Unleaded version is proved wrong, as well. What Torco is most likely giving out is RON #'s not R+M/2. The RON proved to be 101.2 on this test, which would coincide with their claim of 104 octane on 32 oz of the Unleaded version when mixed with 10 gallons of 93 octane. I feel the gains on 93 versus 91 octane are most likely slightly higher (maybe 6 to 7 points gained with 93 octane), but using the 5.5 points rule per this test will help many people from getting confused on the unreliable mixing instructions listed directly on the can of Accelerator Unleaded, as well as the incorrect data that you were given. All in all, hopefully many read usahooters post (#37) above.

What went wrong in your case? I'm not sure, but it isn't normal, and myself and others have proved that it does stave off detonation to such a high degree that it indeed allows a big increase in spark advance, even at huge boost ranges. As I previously said, I do plan to send off several different mixes of the product another independent lab. I'll post the scientific data once I get it.

 

All I'm saying is it did not come close to working as advertised, and the MAN WHO DESIGNED IT says the same. How do you argue with the inventor, it's his product!

For me it was completely worthless. It acted like it did nothing. It stunk (literally!) and etched the aluminum on my right-rear wheel. I gave away the last two gallons I had and I'll never run it again. Does not work for me, beyond that I can't say. Obviously it works for some as that's how I came to try it in the first place.

I don't see how Torco's claim is proved wrong by that test. They claim 11 points with max application which is TWO 32oz cans per ten gallons. So one can per 10 gallons should be half that or 5.5 octane points. Bottom line I don't buy it, could not care any less about an independant test. It flat did not work for me, not even a little bit. Biggest waste of money in the recent year or so for me. Maybe I got the one and only 5 gallon pail that didn't work, but I really doubt it. In fact I bought a 6 pack first then before they arrived I ordered a 5 gallon can as I was so excited to find this stuff. Neither the individual cans or the 5 gallon pail were any different, they both didn't work, stunk up the place, and etched my wheel and exhaust tips. Sometimes reality can be disappointing.

You do also understand that two different fuels with the same R+M/2 rating can have completely different amounts of detonation suppression, right? Maybe this stuff raises the research octane a bunch but not the motor octane, I don't know. But it's the motor octane that is important in stopping full throttle detonation, not the research.



Jody

 

Jody, I can easily argue with the so called "inventor" because of scientific data. It doesn't get any simpler and easier than that. It's understandable that your position on the product isn't going to be good at all due to what you experienced, but you're the first person I've ever heard of that ran into such a situation (if others have, please chime in). It's worked for many others that I know of personally, and many on all the various automotive forums online.

As for MON vs. RON, did you read the analytical data from the test results I posted? It states:

"RON represents the octane value measured with the knock engine set to ideal conditions; the MON is the octane measured with the engine set to harsh conditions. The R+M/2 is the average of the two and is what is posted on the pump. Though there is some variance from product to product, a premium grade gasoline, with a R+M/2 of 91, will typically have an RON of around 96 and an MON of around 86."

With that being said, and going by Saybolts figures, it raised MON by 5.8 points, and it raised RON by 5.2 points. Torco claims, and directly on the can of the product itself, that mixing 10 gallons of 93 octane with 32 oz of Torco Accelerator Unleaded will produce 104 octane. Maybe we need to hit the so called inventor of Torco with some reality, or whomever is giving you this data (I'm not sure who gave you the 64 oz figure; see picture below)?

As for the smell, of course it stinks, all concentrates and fuels stink. ;-)

 

I'm tired of this one. I know what I experienced and I will not waste a nickel on that product. If someone wants to send me a quart to try again I will. But I cannot believe that the 6 individual quarts and one 5 gallon pail were ALL bad. And none of it worked at all, not even a fraction as well as just the alky and 91 octane. And since the alky is so much cheaper than mixing Torco it's a no-brainer to me.

Let's just agree to disagree on this one Casey!

Jody