2020 test2 productsMyths & Experiments

Which Turpentine As Engine Fuel Additive Brand Wins?

A head-to-head test of 2 turpentine as engine fuel additive options with the measured results for each. See how they ranked and watch the full test video.

The verdict
Ranked first

Turpentine

Check price on Amazon

Affiliate link. We may earn a commission at no extra cost to you.

The measured results

Every number below is read straight from the test. Scroll sideways to see all measurements. Products are listed in the order they finished.

ProductSolvent testEngine carbon buildup test, 50/50 gasoline-turpentine blend, 45 min runFuel efficiency test, 50/50 blend, fuel-injected generator powering ~2,370 W of halogen lightsSee-through cylinder head combustion test, 50/50 blendUpper cylinder lubrication wear-scar test, 40 ml turpentine, 30 sec, 5-lb plate removedFarm Bego speed test, turpentine onlyFarm Bego tire-spin distance test, 60/40 turpentine-to-gasoline blendEngine carbon buildup test, 45 min runFuel efficiency test, fuel-injected generator powering ~2,370 W of halogen lightsSee-through cylinder head combustion testUpper cylinder lubrication wear-scar testFarm Bego speed test
1Turpentinedoes not mix with water (oil-based solvent, confirmed not alcohol-based); mixes well with gasoline, blending clear after a brief foggy periodran the engine fine (smells like Pine-Sol); compression reading same as straight gasoline at 110 PSI; MORE carbon buildup on spark plug, cylinder head, and around the valves compared to straight non-ethanol gasolinegenerator ran 21 minutes 52 seconds, about a minute and a half longer than straight gasoline's 20 minutes 28 secondscombustion looked nearly identical to straight gasoline, blue to yellow-orange flame, appeared to nearly fully combustwear scar 9% smaller than the gasoline wear scar, indicating better lubrication than gasoline54 mph, 4 mph slower than the 58 mph non-ethanol gasoline standing record (narrator attributes the shortfall to slick grass traction, not the fuel)107 yards, described as pretty much the same as gasoline, with no noticeable power lossnot testednot testednot testednot testednot tested
291 octane no-ethanol gasolinenot testednot testednot testednot testednot testednot testednot testedran great; left some carbon deposits on the spark plug and a small amount of deposits on the piston, valves, and cylinder head; compression 110 PSI baselinegenerator ran 20 minutes 28 seconds (the time-to-beat baseline)blue flame over the piston gradually becoming bright orange and yellowbaseline/control wear scar, described as larger (9%) than the turpentine wear scar58 mph, the standing record used as the benchmark for the turpentine run

How it was tested

  • solvent miscibility with water and gasoline
  • engine carbon/deposit buildup after a 45 minute run (small engine, new head gasket and spark plug each run)
  • compression test before and after each run
  • fuel efficiency via fuel-injected generator running a fixed light load
  • see-through cylinder head combustion visual comparison
  • upper cylinder lubrication wear-scar comparison
  • Farm Bego top speed run
  • Farm Bego tire-spin distance test
Data notes and caveats

This is a myth-test/exploratory video (not a brand-vs-brand head-to-head): the only product on the Products Tested list is Turpentine, tested as a gasoline additive/substitute against a 91 octane non-ethanol gasoline baseline across cleanliness, fuel efficiency, combustion, lubrication, and real-vehicle (Farm Bego) performance. No single declared winner; results were genuinely mixed (turpentine blend ran the generator longer and showed less wear, but left more carbon buildup than straight gasoline), so winner/runnerUp/budgetPick are left null. The video ends with an explicit safety caveat: do not run turpentine in an actual vehicle, likely catalytic converter damage and other problems. Meta chapters field is null for this video.

More Myths & Experiments