Acetone in fuel increases mileage? - Page 2 - Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest

Go Back   Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > The Pub
GL4x4 Live! GL4x4 Casino

The Pub A friendly forum where everybody is nice, and will answer any questions you have about life.

greatlakes4x4.com is the premier Great Lakes 4x4 Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Search
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 13th, 2007, 05:01 PM   #21
KartRacer
Blowd up
 
KartRacer's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-16-05
Location: Riverside, MI 49084
Posts: 6,335
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to KartRacer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FORD FLARESIDE View Post
If you want to increase your gas mileage, by at least one or two MPG..........you already have all the tools you need.
Drive like a Blue Hair!!!!!
1. Do not accelerate fast
2. do not make hard stops (let the engine slow you down)
3. Keep your speed 10mph slower then what you usually drive
Wrong on those. Accelerating slowly uses more fuel. The balance is somewhere in the middle. RPM's are actually your friend in many cases. Hurry up and get it into high gear. Now, hard stops, the only thing that effects is your brakes. Letting off of the throttle earlier and taking it out of gear on decelerating are two things that can help. The 10 mph rule might work in some cases, but many cars it won't. Some cars, such as my Tbird, the peak torque is at around 2800, which is up over 100mph in 5th gear. So actually driving 70 instead of 80 will result in a lower RPM which it doesn't run as efficiently.
KartRacer is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old December 13th, 2007, 05:07 PM   #22
FORD FLARESIDE
Hockey, it is what it is!
 
FORD FLARESIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-09-06
Location: Comstock Park
Posts: 22,278
iTrader: (24)
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KartRacer View Post
Wrong on those. Accelerating slowly uses more fuel. The balance is somewhere in the middle. RPM's are actually your friend in many cases. Hurry up and get it into high gear. Now, hard stops, the only thing that effects is your brakes. Letting off of the throttle earlier and taking it out of gear on decelerating are two things that can help. The 10 mph rule might work in some cases, but many cars it won't. Some cars, such as my Tbird, the peak torque is at around 2800, which is up over 100mph in 5th gear. So actually driving 70 instead of 80 will result in a lower RPM which it doesn't run as efficiently.
Wow,.................You must be talking about a 4 banger............

Umm, I don't even know how to answer you on this. Except, that I don't agree. Most v6 and v8's run well under 2800 rpm in overdrive. (well actually I could be wrong here, I haven't bought a new car since 1994)

On acceleration, most people blow past their power band, which is not efficient, and slow stoping removes that short distance of acceleration right before you hit the brakes. It will save on mileage over the long run.
FORD FLARESIDE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2007, 05:15 PM   #23
KartRacer
Blowd up
 
KartRacer's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-16-05
Location: Riverside, MI 49084
Posts: 6,335
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to KartRacer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FORD FLARESIDE View Post
Wow,.................You must be talking about a 4 banger............

Umm, I don't even know how to answer you on this. Except, that I don't agree. Most v6 and v8's run well under 2800 rpm in overdrive. (well actually I could be wrong here, I haven't bought a new car since 1994)

On acceleration, most people blow past their power band, which is not efficient, and slow stoping removes that short distance of acceleration right before you hit the brakes. It will save on mileage over the long run.
Not talking about a 4 banger at all. What I am saying, is certain vehicles, like my supercharged v6 Tbird, and I have heard of some supercharged Ponitacs having similar results, the torque is great enough, that as you get closer to the peak torque, the efficiency of the motor is enough to overcome the greater wind resistance of higher speeds.

Also, if you watch an instant fuel mileage gage on a newer car, when you are accelerating at a slow rate, the gage drops to quite a low number still. When you do the math, and you are pulling say, 10 or 12 mpg, over a certain period of time to get up to speed. Then compare that to 8 mpg when it is all of the way to the floor, and you only took half of the time to get up to speed, it all makes sense. Slowly accelerating, especially with automatic transmissions, is not helping your mpgs.
KartRacer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2007, 05:16 PM   #24
chris1044
Senior Member
 
chris1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Lost in the mitten!
Posts: 2,027
iTrader: (4)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FORD FLARESIDE View Post
Wow,.................You must be talking about a 4 banger............

Umm, I don't even know how to answer you on this. Except, that I don't agree. Most v6 and v8's run well under 2800 rpm in overdrive. (well actually I could be wrong here, I haven't bought a new car since 1994)

On acceleration, most people blow past their power band, which is not efficient, and slow stoping removes that short distance of acceleration right before you hit the brakes. It will save on mileage over the long run.
this thread is going to get over many peoples head......

Fuel mileage will be best where the engines volumetric efficiency is best - whatever RPM that is (and that's a result of the bore/stroke/displacement/cam selection and other variables as well).....

Acetone works good to clean up a fuel system from what I've seen.....and no it doesn't eat the fuel lines....at least I've never had it happen

Edit: totally off the main subject here, but can someone within the industry explain to me why, often times when the engine will get a better fuel mileage at a higher RPM the factory utilizes a cruising over drive speed that reduces this mileage?? I assume it's for emission purposes, but I dunno - example....my ranger spun roughly 1800 on the highway with stock gear/tire combo in OD at 75. Now that I've regeared it, it turns around 2600 at the same speed, and gets roughly 3-4 mpg better (and yes, that has been "speed corrected" to accomidate other factors).

Last edited by chris1044; December 13th, 2007 at 05:19 PM.
chris1044 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2007, 05:59 PM   #25
DuffMan
Your Message Here
 
DuffMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: The Ile of Grosse
Posts: 5,845
iTrader: (11)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

OK

Our internal combustion vehicles run on air, mixed with fuel. Foe the discussion below, let's stick with gasoline-powered vehicles.

Very simply, the intake system uses a carburetor or fuel injection system to deliver a specific amount of gasoline into the incoming airflow. The fuel to air ratio often varies based on the volume of airflow coming in. It may also vary slightly based on other factors (in more sophisticated fuel injection systems).

That being said, the fuel system is ignorant of the chemical properties of the fuel being supplied. Yes, I know higher-end fuel injection systems provide input to adjust timing, etc... based on engine performance, but generally the intake system just knows to mix x amount of fuel with y amount of air.

So using higher octane gas, gas with additives, magic potions, etc... won't affect mileage. I know people that still argue they get better mileage with premium fuel (because the car apparently know it's higher octane and uses less?) or with certain brands of fuel (again, BS assuming they're both gas and not E85 or something).

So, in summary, magnets, potions, higher octane, etc... won't cause your vehicle to burn less gas, because the fuel system doesn't know the difference.
__________________
This is the Pub. Leave common sense at the door.
DuffMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2007, 06:01 PM   #26
TopThrillJoe
Senior Member
 
TopThrillJoe's Avatar
 
Join Date: 10-29-07
Location: Battle Creek MI
Posts: 2,164
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to TopThrillJoe
Default

about driving slower:
I live in battle creek and often go to Baldwin to ride 4wheelers. Ive noticed that taking m66 to highway 10 is takes much longer then driving 131 at 70mph v 55mph on m66 results in less fuel burned. The difference is about 1/8 of a tank
TopThrillJoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2007, 06:47 PM   #27
ScOoTeR
hoo dat. wat.
 
ScOoTeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Howell
Posts: 21,607
iTrader: (36)
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan View Post
OK

Our internal combustion vehicles run on air, mixed with fuel. Foe the discussion below, let's stick with gasoline-powered vehicles.

Very simply, the intake system uses a carburetor or fuel injection system to deliver a specific amount of gasoline into the incoming airflow. The fuel to air ratio often varies based on the volume of airflow coming in. It may also vary slightly based on other factors (in more sophisticated fuel injection systems).

That being said, the fuel system is ignorant of the chemical properties of the fuel being supplied. Yes, I know higher-end fuel injection systems provide input to adjust timing, etc... based on engine performance, but generally the intake system just knows to mix x amount of fuel with y amount of air.

So using higher octane gas, gas with additives, magic potions, etc... won't affect mileage. I know people that still argue they get better mileage with premium fuel (because the car apparently know it's higher octane and uses less?) or with certain brands of fuel (again, BS assuming they're both gas and not E85 or something).

So, in summary, magnets, potions, higher octane, etc... won't cause your vehicle to burn less gas, because the fuel system doesn't know the difference.

Some engine control systems can increase spark timing if knock is not detected. Running more spark (unless you're already at MBT) increases efficiency and, therefor, fuel economy.

A very good example are engine control systems that can detect the percentage of ethanol in the fuel tank and can advance spark to take advantage of the higher octane rating. This definitely increases fuel economy over just running base "gasoline" spark advance values.

Also, modern fuel injection systems can keep your a/f ratio optimal (~14.7:1) nearly 100% of the time. The trick is to upshift as soon as possible to keep the revs low and the throttle opening large (without going into fuel enrichment). Opening the throttle more decreases pumping losses and your net fuel efficiency goes up. -- This is why EGR increases fuel economy; the trapped mass fraction of exhaust gas cannot be reburned. When EGR is on, power is lower and you have to increase the throttle opening to make the same power you would have w/o EGR. This larger opening decreases pumping losses and, again, your net fuel efficiency goes up.

Before I hear anyone say "I TOLD YOU TEH EGR KILLS MAH MAX POWAH!", it doesn't. EGR relies on engine vacuum to draw in the exhaust gasses. You want max power at WOT; at WOT your manifold pressure equals atmospheric pressure, i.e. NO VACUUM.

The best way to increase your fuel economy is to slow down when you drive. Wind resistance goes up exponentially with speed.
A good example is that my truck gets:
15 mpg @ 65
16 mpg @ 60
18 mpg @ 55
This is also a function of running the engine slower, but the biggest benefit comes from not pushing that brick through the air so fast.
__________________
@clarkstoncracker
ScOoTeR is online now   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2007, 07:24 PM   #28
JEEPR
Playing Possum
 
JEEPR's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-05-05
Location: Harrison Township
Posts: 6,744
iTrader: (9)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

I want to know Fram_boy's opinion on all of this.. :tonka:
JEEPR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2007, 07:32 PM   #29
FORD FLARESIDE
Hockey, it is what it is!
 
FORD FLARESIDE's Avatar
 
Join Date: 04-09-06
Location: Comstock Park
Posts: 22,278
iTrader: (24)
Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Default

I'm just a low-rent red neck what do I know..........

Just from my expierience, when I drive the Crew Cab one ton Diesel, I can pull 22 to 23 mpg pretty easy. When my wife drives it, she is lucky to get 18mpg.
FORD FLARESIDE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2007, 07:34 PM   #30
thormxboy420
FOUNDRY RATT
 
thormxboy420's Avatar
 
Join Date: 02-02-07
Location: Ludington, MI
Posts: 545
iTrader: (1)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to thormxboy420
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEEPR View Post
I want to know Fram_boy's opinion on all of this.. :tonka:
2X where is he
thormxboy420 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2007, 08:05 PM   #31
Brods
Senior Member
 
Join Date: 01-21-07
Location: Salem, Mi
Posts: 704
iTrader: (2)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DuffMan View Post
....I know people that still argue they get better mileage with .....certain brands of fuel (again, BS assuming they're both gas and not E85 or something).
Guess you're not old enough to remember the Shell (iirc) commercials where the two identical cars had the same amount of gas, one had Shell and other had some bargain brand. They went around a track until they ran out of gas. Of course the one with Shell gas went further. Not sure if that would still apply today since it sounds like most gas comes out of the same pipeline now.


ScOoTeR, why would they want 14.7 all the time, wouldn't lean burn (like diesels) be more efficient. I thought the main issue with lean burn on a gasser was getting the mixture to ignite. Wasn't the Honda CVCC (or whatever) where they had a small ignition chamber where the mixture was rich enough to ignite with a spark and the main chamber ran lean and was ignited from the small chamber?
Brods is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2007, 08:30 PM   #32
ScOoTeR
hoo dat. wat.
 
ScOoTeR's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-09-05
Location: Howell
Posts: 21,607
iTrader: (36)
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brods View Post
ScOoTeR, why would they want 14.7 all the time, wouldn't lean burn (like diesels) be more efficient. I thought the main issue with lean burn on a gasser was getting the mixture to ignite. Wasn't the Honda CVCC (or whatever) where they had a small ignition chamber where the mixture was rich enough to ignite with a spark and the main chamber ran lean and was ignited from the small chamber?

Brods,
Currently, lean burn is not an issue in gasoline engines - at least from a functional viewpoint - using direct injection, we're able to run very lean. Right now the biggest hurdle is what to do with the excess oxides of nitrogen that are generated when lean. NOx traps are expensive and can be prone to failure - not a good thing when the manufacturer is responsible for the longevity of the emissions control system (150K miles).
__________________
@clarkstoncracker
ScOoTeR is online now   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2007, 09:26 PM   #33
Kodiak450r
Keep on truckin
 
Kodiak450r's Avatar
 
Join Date: 11-14-07
Location: Waterford, MI
Posts: 5,911
iTrader: (19)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Default

I have done my own experiments with fuel additives, grades of gasoline, acetone mixs, and have concluded the following things. for one higher octane means you can advance the ignitiong timing more which results in better efficiency. did a test in my camaro. 87 octane 10* base/36* mechanical and 50* total timing. got 14 mpg on a 100 mile drive from PA to NJ. ran tank dry an filled up with 93. was able to run 14* base/40 mechanical and 54* total without detonation. on the way back from NJ to PA i averaged 16.5 MPG. now heres where the arguement takes place. at the time regular was 2.59 with 93 being 2.79. to fill a 15 gallon tank with 87 it cost 38.85. to fill with 93 it cost 41.85. so it cost me $3 more per tank. running 87 octane i got 210 miles from a tank, running 93 i got 247 miles from a tank. realistically 37 miles for 3 bucks is not that much of a trade off. now as for acetone mixed in with the gas i noticed that it did give me slightly better mileage went from 16.5 up to 18. but at the cost of about 5 bucks for a quart of acetone. not really much of a trade off either. other fuel additives i have tried are octane booster. bout the same trade off cost to put it in versus results. and for those who thinks the magnets are effective. completely and totally not true. they do not work and are a waste of money. fuel is not magnetic, never was never will be. the whole BS advertising is made up. the best way to increase fuel mileage is to make the vehicle as light as possible, and increase it's aerodynamics, and increase the working effiency of the engine. my camaro is very aerodynamic, has 230 horsepower and gets average of 18 mpg currently. when it was stock i had 160 horsepower and got 14 at best. all i have done is put complete header back exhaust system, removed restrictive intake tubing and replaced with freeflowing K&N filter. not only gaining 70 horsepower but about 4 mpg from it. and yes my results were dyno proven. there i'm done babbeling now
Kodiak450r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2007, 10:30 PM   #34
Fatty Matty
Senior Member
 
Fatty Matty's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-05-06
Location: Tecumseh
Posts: 5,378
iTrader: (10)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Default

1. Seafoam. 1/2 can in tank, other 1/2 in the intake.
2. New plugs, wires, cap and rotor.
3. Make sure your tire pressure is right on.

That's all you need.
__________________
'12 JKU
'14 1500
www.midwest-abs.com

Last edited by Fatty Matty; December 13th, 2007 at 10:31 PM. Reason: Retard Spelling. Buzzed up.
Fatty Matty is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply
Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest > General 4x4 Stuff > The Pub

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:22 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright 2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd. Runs best on HiVelocity Hosting.
Page generated in 0.28703 seconds with 63 queries