Rev-X Testing

[Power Hungry]

Well, we finally got around to picking up a nice little 6.0L so we could really start beating these things and see what they're going to handle. We did some dyno testing relating to calibration differences, but that's for another post. I want to cover here specifically what benefits we saw from adding Rev-X to our oil.

Here are the vehicle specs:

Engine: Late 2004 (2005 style heads)
Mileage: 284,000
Block: Stock
Heads: Head Job (Valves, Guides), Head Studs, Black Onyx Head Gaskets
Turbo: Stock
Injectors: Stock (Some newly replaced, though not sure how many)
Exhaust: Completely Stock (Cat still in place)
ECM: VXBC9N8
TCM: TQBF0NA
FICM: ARZ2AL10

The first thing we did when we purchased the truck was to toss the Inductive Heating (I/H) strategy in favor of a non-I/H version. It simply stands to reason that if the injectors (or specifically, the spool valves) are in good shape, there's no need at all for the inductive heating of the injectors.

Well, I found out on my first cool morning that the I/H strategy was covering up some slight deficiencies and stiction issues with the injectors. Starting was not a problem and the idle was reasonably smooth. However, a short trip up the road revealed an extremely noticeable miss above 25% throttle. This lasted for about 2 miles before the injectors warmed up enough to function correctly. Honestly nothing terribly unexpected from running this particular FICM strategy.

A few days later we got the truck over to the shop and strapped it down to the rollers just so we could see what's what. We did several comparisons with different base ECM and FICM strategy combinations, just to get some real-world numbers. The original VXBC9N8 strategy was a bit of an underperformer, although this what I had expected anyway. I switch to the VXBC6 an found modest improvements which, again, was what I expected.

After a few hours of swapping files in and out, I ended up with a solid 140 HP program that was putting down some pretty impressive numbers:

419 HP at 2800 RPM
820 Ft/Lbs at 2600 RPM
400+ HP from 2600 RPM to redline

Needless to say, I was pretty happy with those numbers and was ready to call it a day. Then a thought hit me. (I know, it's rare :doh: ) Just for grins, I grabbed some Rev-X off the shelf, poured it in the engine, and let the engine run for a bit while I checked other fluids, analyzed my earlier datalogs and dyno plots, and cleaned up a bit. After about 30 minutes, I decided to try a couple more runs. Now keep in mind that this vehicle had been running for about 3 hours solid, with the only off time being how long it would take to change programs (maybe 2-3 minutes) so the engine oil and coolant temps were reasonably stable.

I will regularly do a series of three dyno runs, disregarding the first, using the second, and referencing the 3rd for comparitive accuracy. The following dyno plot is done with this format. These are the 2nd run plots for the 140 HP program with and without Rev-X.

(click image to enlarge)
http://www.gopowerhungry.com/images/products/ficm_ecm/VXBC6N4_AKZ2AH14_140_HP_Rev_X_vs_No_Rev_X_640x280. jpg (http://www.gopowerhungry.com/images/products/ficm_ecm/VXBC6N4_AKZ2AH14_140_HP_Rev_X_vs_No_Rev_X.jpg)

As you can clearly see, the Rev-X has made a significant difference in power through the entire RPM band, especially between 2000 and 2600 PRM. The was a 9 HP and 25 Ft/Lb peak gain, with the 400+ HP mark moving down to 2550 RPM.

What I also noticed (and you can't see on the dyno) is that over the next few mornings my cold running issue had been completely eliminated. The trucks starts up perfectly and I can immediately take off without so much as a skip or hiccup.

I am currently planning to produce some fuel economy results, but I unfortunately do not have any "before" numbers since I hadn't even used 1/4 of a tank before we put the Rev-X in. However, I'm very interested to see what my final economy does come out to... once I settle down and quit playing with the truck. :D

Up until now, I've been extolling the virtues of Rev-X simply based on the responses and feedback from our customers. In fact, that was how we found out about it in the first place. Now, as a Rev-X user, I must say that I am thoroughly impressed. Will it work for everyone? Who's to say. We've most certainly had non-positive feedback from customers who said it did nothing for them, but those type of feedback were pretty infrequent. In most cases, our customers did notice some positive benefits. I know I'm pretty happy with it.

I hope this information is helpful.

[Jackpine]

How does it work Bill? Any idea if it's a friction or viscosity modifier? I remember when I started using Mobile 1 in my old Mercury Marquis, that I got about a 2 mpg increase, but it had a much lower viscosity rating than the "standard oil" I'd been using. Now, of course, Ford's oil for gas engines is 5W20 as I recall, so there's not much you can do to improve on that.

And, any idea if Rev-X for gas engines is supposed to be as good as what you found for the diesel?

- Jack

[Longshot270]

Jack beat me to it, same question.

Cool info :2thumbs:

[Power Hungry]

From what I understand from Dan, it is a combination of both friction modifiers and viscosity stabilizers. For obvious reasons, he wouldn't go into great detail about the chemical properties of the additive, but did explain that it contains many of the base compounds they USED to put in oils years ago and now no longer do to reduce costs.

That's all I really know about it. That, and it worked well for my 6.0L. Now to try it in the Expedition. :)

[Jackpine]

From what I understand from Dan, it is a combination of both friction modifiers and viscosity stabilizers. For obvious reasons, he wouldn't go into great detail about the chemical properties of the additive, but did explain that it contains many of the base compounds they USED to put in oils years ago and now no longer do to reduce costs.

That's all I really know about it. That, and it worked well for my 6.0L. Now to try it in the Expedition. :)

Please do! That will be of great interest to me.

- Jack

[Corey Cohron RIP]

We also just recently purchased an E-350 conversion van which has the same engine as the 97-03 F-150, so we can give everyone some feedback there, too. We'll probably be taking it on its first road trip next month!

[F-127]

Awesome. I have used and witnessed Rev-X in helping with stiction issues in 6.0 injectors on several vehicles. The 9HP peak gain and overall gain in general is what impressed me. Nice to see some solid testing and results completed. Great work Bill and the rest of the PHP gang.

[cleatus12r]

I am currently planning to produce some fuel economy results


It's kind of hard to get accurate numbers when the right rear tire consistently puts on twice the miles that the other three do during a trip to town........ :giggle:

[Longshot270]

Why not fill up the tank, throw it on the rollers and "drive" 50 miles. Then your environmental factors are removed...and you can stop having to buy new tires one or two at a time. :hehe:

[ToMang07]

Wow, Thanks for the info Bill!

:thumbs up yellow:

[Power Hungry]

The nice thing about this dyno is that we can "script" a simulated environment and drive hundreds of simulated miles. The only thing we can't really account for is headwind, but grades are no problem at all.

It's our plan to eventually get a good script together and start doing some really in-depth mileage testing, just so we can quantitatively show the benefits of tuning. Combined with datalogging, it will be very useful.

[Longshot270]

The nice thing about this dyno is that we can "script" a simulated environment and drive hundreds of simulated miles. The only thing we can't really account for is headwind, but grades are no problem at all.

It's our plan to eventually get a good script together and start doing some really in-depth mileage testing, just so we can quantitatively show the benefits of tuning. Combined with datalogging, it will be very useful.

Couldn't you simulate a headwind by increasing pulling load? Since you can get it at a standard cruising speed that can be "scripted" in at a standard rate of parasitic loss, similar to a grade. IIRC wind resistance increases exponentially by speed, so that makes it a calculable value. Find the surface area up front, adjust for the aerodynamics (since it is not completely a flat faced cube, like the height of the windshield for example) then use the formula they use for properly gauging wind strength resistance on sky scrapers, reduce that by the ratio of frontal surface height (number you got earlier) and wheel base length for angular leverage (since the truck is longer than it is tall) to make it seem like more weight on the axle. It makes perfect sense and you could probably do the math in your head.


...yeah, I kinda made that up for the sake of humor. Don't hurt yourself on it. :hehe:

That is really cool though, you'll come up with something.

[Jackpine]

About the only advantage to knowing the effect on economy due to wind, would be to adjust the fueling/timing to maximize efficiency. But, you'd really be playing with the same set of parameters as you would for anything else that creates load on the drivetrain, such as a hill, increased rolling resistance and the like. So, there's no real reason to try to simulate a wind, when it's really engine load vs fuel used that you want to improve.

And, as long as you're operating in closed loop, you'd probably have to "bias" the O2 sensor values somehow to allow much of a change, which I imagine could be done.

Bill's already said he can set the A/F ratio leaner than stoich if the load is low and it's set richer than stoich when the load is high, so using a dyno just probably allows him to refine a "theoretically derived" tune for a particular vehicle. I imagine it's time for all of us to truck on over to Georgia for a dyno tune! :giggle:

- Jack

[Longshot270]

About the only advantage to knowing the effect on economy due to wind, would be to adjust the fueling/timing to maximize efficiency. But, you'd really be playing with the same set of parameters as you would for anything else that creates load on the drivetrain, such as a hill, increased rolling resistance and the like. So, there's no real reason to try to simulate a wind, when it's really engine load vs fuel used that you want to improve.

And, as long as you're operating in closed loop, you'd probably have to "bias" the O2 sensor values somehow to allow much of a change, which I imagine could be done.

Bill's already said he can set the A/F ratio leaner than stoich if the load is low and it's set richer than stoich when the load is high, so using a dyno just probably allows him to refine a "theoretically derived" tune for a particular vehicle. I imagine it's time for all of us to truck on over to Georgia for a dyno tune! :giggle:

- Jack

- Jack

Good point, Jack, and Jack. :hehe:

[Jackpine]

Smartass! :hehe: I hate it when I do that. :doh: (So I fixed it in my post.)

- Jack

[cajunboy2208]

I have been reading on this stuff.
I heard it works awesome in diesels.

As far as gas goes, meh.

It also has the same chemicals that made up ZMAX, which was known to kill a couple vehicles.

I really would love to test this, as you proved the dyno gains... If I had a diesel I definitely would, and their gas product really works(again too bad it's only for diesels).

If anyone can do some solid testing in a gas truck, please let me know the results, I really want to try this stuff!

[Jackpine]

I have been reading on this stuff.
I heard it works awesome in diesels.

As far as gas goes, meh.

It also has the same chemicals that made up ZMAX, which was known to kill a couple vehicles.

I really would love to test this, as you proved the dyno gains... If I had a diesel I definitely would, and their gas product really works(again too bad it's only for diesels).

If anyone can do some solid testing in a gas truck, please let me know the results, I really want to try this stuff!

Somehow, I doubt the stuff "killed" any vehicles. I suspect the owners did that themselves. (I keep saying our trucks are NOT "funny cars"! They were not built to take the punishment that a door slammer gets.) But, I think some people want to put them in that arena.

But I agree, I'd like to see some testing from someone who has no "cards in the game", like Bill. If a product can improve the Torque and HP over the entire curve, it's also going to improve efficiency, which is what I'm interested in.

Trouble is, Rev-X is damned expensive! Do you get a "payback"?

- Jack

[F-127]

Trouble is, Rev-X is damned expensive! Do you get a "payback"?

- Jack

For diesels, and especially 6.0s with a 'sticky' injector, oh yeah. For the price of injector replacement, and the track record for Rev-X in curing a slight misfire, it's a chance I'd be willing to make. Part of the reason Rev-X, as an oil additive, works so good in diesels(namely 6.0, but also 7.3) is because they are a HEUI(Hydraulically-actuated Electronically-controlled Unit Injection) style of injection system. Each injector has a fuel side and an oil side, and the oil side uses engine oil. Through the life of a pickup, extended oil changes, cheap filters, cheap oil, or just a bunch of miles, the oil side can start to cause some issues. Unlike most oil additives and 'snake-oils,' Rev-X just seems to work in curing stiction or sticky HEUI injectors.

For gassers, not so sure. I think it would take very tightly kept variables, everything the same except Rev-X, and a scripted dyno runs to check anything there. For myself, I have a hard time thinking there'd be a payback for gas engines, or just about anything but HEUI engines.

[88Racing]

Interesting....keep us posted on the gassser results.....

[2008F450]

Any testing with the 6.4? I typically run Lucas oil stabilizer every oil change. I'm always looking for better fuel economy though.

[jallen3521]

I am glad to see the results of this test. My engine ran pretty smooth to begin with but I got my hands on 2 bottles of rev-x and figured what the heck. I did an oil change switched to Rotella T6 and dumped in the rev-x. I did not really notice a difference but then again I don't normally check fuel mileage.

This is good to know. I will be using Rev-x at every oil change now!