|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Noxide
SirTweaksabit
Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 362
Location: houston tx
|
 Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 9:54 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
As some of ya know i have a 1970 chevy Nova...and its my everyday driving car. It has a small block 400 (350 bored & stroked) and my compression ratio is like 12.5:1. I live in Houston Tx and its hot and humid most of the times. The price of gas has gone up a bit. Regular is at $2.13 a gal. I have to use Super which is $2.35 in most major name brand stations. My damn car burns up half a tank of 16 gal in like 60 miles. Ive herd of styrofoam in gasoline raises the octaine. I dont know how true that is. For now as summer is comming i have to mix 50-50 of super-unleaded and 114 octaine (racing fuel) I'll be willing to test out fuel mixtures in my car. My freinds dad owns a shop that has a Emissions testing machine. All we have to do is put it on trainning mode. Besides i dont have cats or oxygen sencers, so i can adjust the carb and timing. oh and also ive installed a fuel cooling kit. http://www.jegs.com/cgi-bin/ncommerce3/ProductDisplay?prrfnbr=2716&prmenbr=361
It works realy good. Only down fall is to reload with ice. 
_________________
Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe, AM2 4600 x2, 150GB Raptor Exteme, 7900GTX in SLI Corsair XMS DDR2 CAS3, Custom DD Water Cooling |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Google
Sponsor
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 9:54 pm Post subject: Advertisement |
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Silicon Skum
UberTweaker
Joined: 26 Jul 2004
Posts: 1156
Location: UK, Geordie land
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| [TN] Nathan wrote: | | But let's give it the benefit of the doubt and open our mind instead of slamming the door shut right away. |
I'm a fairly open minded person, I NEVER rule anything out, I just reduce it to a percentage of possibility. 
As I said, I'm in this to find out for myself. I'll conduct a few tests to see just what is going on with acetone, there may be something in it, there might not. Only one way to find out..... 
| Silicon Skum wrote: | | While the free energy thing is another topic. |
| [TN] Nathan wrote: | But you need to understand that there a lot of things that aren't tested ad nauseum. Saying you will need 10 years of testing to try something is a little anal retentive.
Take the finger off the edject button and stay awhile. |
I agree, but I'm the type of person who preferes proof as to blind faith, guess I'm kinda agnostic in that sense.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | | I dont doubt that in the slightest, but what performance drop was created by the inifecient manufacturer's air box and ducting? |
| [TN] Nathan wrote: | No, actually, I also tested it with the replacement K&N filter in the stock assembly too. Both netting the same improvement, but the Cold air intake sounds cool and really howl when you tromp the go pedal.  |
Hmmm, I'm actually suprised by that, I would have thought there would have been a reduction in power with the air box setup. There may still be a bit more room for improvement with your cold air feed setup, in that case. By the sound of things that standard paper air filter was REALY not up to the job.
I love that induction roar sound myself.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | | People are willing to belive, wether that is a good thing or bad, well thats a different topic. |
| [TN] Nathan wrote: | | True, but that arguement cannot be used here. No one is trying to scam someone, they are just asking you to try. |
True, but there are other types of "scam", not just the money orientated tpe. Some people just like atention, some like to pretend they are some briliant scientist type etc. A few years ago there was a character on the newsgroups, he hung about in alt.2600, called himself "Archangel". He claimed to be a long term hacker, he claimed a LOT of BS that never happened. I had some dealings with this guy, sometimes he seemed belivable, the rest of the time it was pure BS.
While I'm not comparing the acetone author to Dan Garstekie, it worth thinking about some of his claims, how do we KNOW he's ever tested anything?
I know there is other anecdotal evidence of people using this which i'm more inclined to belive than any individual.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | | While that is true, My point in using this as a comparison to the acetone additive is that BOTH have claimed the same |
| [TN] Nathan wrote: | | No......... Not an appropriate comparison. |
OK, it was a weak argument.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | Just another question to think about before jumping to conclusions about data from older engine designs from years ago and applying them to modern engine systems.
Always ask questions, if nobody does, how would anyting ever get answered? |
| [TN] Nathan wrote: | | I do, and I am extremely hesitant to buy people's bullcrap. This does make some sense. A lot more sense that non-sense. WOOO! Made a funny..... |
| Silicon Skum wrote: | You may be right, I don't have a lot of experience with ECU systems, but I do know of a number of modern vehicles that do not provide any perforamce gains when using 97 / 98RON fuel compared to 95RON fuel.
There are however low cost, low performance cars of various manufacturers being built today that use the Rover MEMs ECU which does NOT use knock sensors, instead it relies soley on the programed fuel / rpm / ignition map. I have dealt with one of these in a '99 Rover TPi Mini Cooper, what a bugger to sort out!  The MOST complicated ECU system EVER BUILT.  |
| [TN] Nathan wrote: | | Yea, and only used in that model, never heard of anything like that on this side of the pond. Everything uses knock sensors here. |
The MEMS ECU is used in some sports cars, not just cheapo run-abouts, Lotus Exige, 340R, Caterham superlight and the Westfield FW400 to name four. I know that there are some similar types of ECU floating about.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | | Ok, valid point, over here in the UK Castrol Valvemaster ( really an LRP additive but a fantastic octane booster safe for use in unleaded cars) only costs about £1.99 which is roughly the price for 100ml pure Acetone from a chemist (or drug store as you call them) |
| [TN] Nathan wrote: | | For the same US$4.00 you are saying, we can buy a crap load more 100% acetone than that. Maybe you have supply problems over there. It isn't that expensive over here. |
Probably just being taxed through the nose, like everything else. 90% of our fuel costs are tax, technically it only costs me £1 to fill my old mini tank, the other £9 goes to tax.
[quote="Silicon Skum"]You missed the point, which is that IF the engine is not ECU controled and the spark is not adjusted and the car shows an improved MPG (assuming proper state of tune)quote]
| [TN] Nathan wrote: | Actually, again, if you are getting more bang per fire, yes, you should see a little les consumption because you would have to use as much throttle for the equivelent load.
Mind you, it might not be as much as the computer controlled engine, but there should be still an improvement. |
Yeah, so if there is any improved MPG readings, then it looks like the Acetone is doing something to the way the fuel burns. If not then it could just be the improved octane rating allowing an ECU engine to produce more power by advancing the ignition timing. This is going to be the test that reveals what the acetone is doing to the fuel. Should be interesting. I will also try to run my car on 97 / 98 RON fuel with the correct spark advance and then run the test with the 95Ron fuel treated with the acetone with the higher spark advance, note the MPG / any pinking and then try the 97Ron fuel treated with acetone and see what difference there is in the MPG tests. There could be some usefull info from this that might help to get better MPG results for others trying this.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | This is about as realistic a test that any one of us could perform without expensive engines, dyno equiptment and exhaust gas analisers.
If you see what I'm getting at. |
| [TN] Nathan wrote: | | Yea, but it makes sense that if you add a volatile fluid to another less volatile fluid, it will will raise the more non-volatile fluids volatility up. Wow.... That got intense.. |
depending on what you mean by "volatile", the gasoline will be more volatile than than the acetone, however the acetone does have a FAR lower flash point, boiling point and vaporisation point than iso-octane, so it may be doing something in the combustion process.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | NO!, sorry, but I still think that is NOT a true test.
Nate, would you be willing to hold a highly radioactive item in your hand if I said to you " I held it for five minutes just last week, and look I'm not dead, so it must be safe!", somehow I think you would NOT, and this is exactly the same type of test performed on those unspecified parts. this just was not a complete test. I've worked in analitical labs before, trust me if anyone ever produced a test result like that, they would have been yelled at before being hit hard. |
| [TN] Nathan wrote: | That is a rather extreme and weird comparison. The person tested the components and they did not tear or break down or melt like ignorant people are stating will happen.
This shouldn't be even a concern anymore, the other solvents don't hurt our system, so this will not be a concern in 0.02% concentration. |
Nate, a tested item does not have to burst into flames or explode before you could say it has failed. I know that some plastics such as perspex (plexiglass) will react very strongly with acetone, just because you don't see something melt does not mean it's unaffected. Lower concentrations do not always mean that a reaction will not take place.
I think we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | | Not at all, but I am concerned by the lack of ANY testing in a controled evironment. |
| [TN] Nathan wrote: | Again, if you need everything tested to death to deem them legit, life would be pretty boring and rather slow for anyone.
Again, if you don't want to do it based on SCAMS, you are missing the point.
PLEASE, JUST STOP WITH THE SCAM ARGUEMENT, IT IS GETTING IRRITATING AND IS UNFOUNDED. STOP BEING SO NEGATIVE. |
I'm not using the scam argument, I am however using the argument that there are other ideas, methods, information etc. out there that does not have a basis in fact or proof. There are plenty of people out ther who are providing information about fuel systems and devices (no sales pitch, just the info on how to build it / how it works) and there are some types of evidence that these devices are seemingly working.
Have you ever heard the urban legend of the car that could run on water as a fuel and how it was hushed up by the oil companies? well I don't know if you ever heard of the "Geet fuel processor" which alows an engine to run on 25% fuel (ANY type of liquid fuel) and 75% WATER. Now, the thing is, is this really working or is it just an engine that is running on a **VERY** lean mix of fuel and using water vapor / steam to help the engine run by cooling the combustion chamber and control the burn of the fuel?? I dunno either but I have seen plenty of anecdotal "evidence" to show that something could be happening. Check out this site, they have hooked the engine up to a exhaust gas analyser:
http://bingofuel.online.fr/geet/html/fp5ken.htm
Do a little google search for the Geet fuel processor plans, I think you will be stumped by how it is alledged to work. I know *I* have BIG trouble with some of the reasoning behind this, and I'm still willing to belive it is doing something (now, if it is or is not safe for the engine to work like this is another matter).
Not comparing Acetone to this, but it's an interesting thing non the less.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | | yes, it is a anti-knock rating, It is measured relative to a mixture of iso-octane (2,2,4-trimethylpentane). |
| [TN] Nathan wrote: | Yes, it is as intimately related to this debate than anything else. You just said gasoline is made up of several chemicals.
Tell me this, is there the extensive testing you require for each and every one of those contained in fuel?
You blindly accept them because the oil company's add them, but do you really know what they do? |
As a matter of fact, I do know about these chemicals, and No, I do not "blindly" accept them, but I have little choise but to do so unless I open a refinery in my back yard and brew my own brand. There are a number of chemicals added to petrol that I have big concerns about, namely the lead replacement additives which are NOT needed, they are only there because the lead caused the "dry" CAT to be poisoned and block up with lead particles. Lead in petrol CAN be removed in a certain type of catalyst, but no company is willing to go an alternative route and develope a leaded fuel catalyst system. The oil industry was the leading factor in the removal of leaded petrol, not because of healt issues, just monitary ones. The oil companies can now carry on providing poor quality fuel for use in engines with out having to adjust any of the refinary methods to produce a cleaner fuel that is safe and efficient.
There was a fuel used by the early engines called "automotive spirit", this was a very clean burning fuel that had a complete burn and produced only H2O and CO2 as byproducts of the combustion process. This was WAY to costly for oil companies to produce for a mass market, also the fuel was limited to a maximum of 50 octane rating, so was not suitable for use in high compression engines, which is the only practical way to develope more power in a given power plant. Things could have been developed to allow the clean fuel to be used, but the oil companies would not be able to make such huge profits, result is we got crap fuel and they got VERY VERY rich.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | | True, but I'm not implying that. |
| [TN] Nathan wrote: | | Yes, but you are saying it won't make any difference to the fuel's volatility. Sure you are implying that. |
I doubt that it will make a significant difference to the fuel volitlity. The reason for the claimed effects of complete burning is based the idea that the acetone is allowing the fuel that has entered the combustion chamber as droplets as opposed to a vapour (so burning poorly), to be dispearsed easier by reducing surface tension. In theory the reduced surfe tension will make the larger drops break up in to far smaller ones which will vapourise easier in the heat of the combustion chamber during the compression / power stroke and so burning completely and producing more bang with the same volume of fuel. The fuel's volitlity has never changed, only the phase change has become more complete to allow the fuel to ignight and burn correctly.
I understand the concept of what is claimed to happen, I'm just having trouble accepting it blindly that this is the case.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | | That is an assumption of the chemical behaving in a similar way, which may or not happen. I can give you a list as long as my arm of chemicals that have similar chemisty but behave in totaly different ways. A test is needed to confirm if the acetone would react with or poison the catalyst. |
| [TN] Nathan wrote: | But do you have the tests showing that the existing chemicals in fuel don't harm the cat? Do you really........?
I don't think so, you are thinking they do no harm out of blind faith really. No complete testing has been done on all the existing additives to the degree you wish to test a small concentration of acetone, but yet you think they all are good?
I wouldn't be thinking so. |
And I don't, as I already have mentioned these chemical additive DO poison the cat, they are not so much of a problem with the CAT at operating temp as the catalysts chosen were specific for the intended additve to make sure thse carcinogenic chemicals are not released into the air. They ARE a problem when the cat is below or above operating temperature as they will flow straight through. I am unsure if any of the catalysts in th matrix will react with the acetone or if it will simply pass through. I'm more worried about what happens in the presence of these other chemical ina catalyst, the catalyst's function is to speed up reactions. This is where my concern is.
As for your testing point, I do belive that FAR greater testing has been conducted in controled environments on these chemicals than have sofar been done with acetone. And yes, some of the chemicals tested did show negative results in the catalyst, however they were still deemed accepatble (who wants to make a CAT that lasts the life of the car, no money in that!).
| Silicon Skum wrote: | | I was not asuming that acetone will behave in the same way as lead, I was trying to show that a catalytic converter can be poisoned in a short time by a low concentrated additve (admittedly it's a higher concentration than the acetone, but is still a valid point). |
| [TN] Nathan wrote: | Pure gasoline can destroy a cat too? Does that mean we should stop using gasoline?
I know it seems silly, but that is kinda what you are implying to a degree. |
I'm not even sure where to start with that remark. I never made any such claims nor implied them. I'm beging to think you are reading something I'm not seeing.
What does LEADED petrol have in common "pure" gasoline? pure gasoline is esentialy nothing but iso-octane, not that it could be used as "gasoline". Gasoline is a blend of chemicals that perform specific functions, not just that of reducing pre-ignition, these chemicals also reduce wear in the moving parts of the engine that are exposed to the comustion process - pistons, rings, valve stems and valve seats. This is one of the benifits that was found after lead was used to raise the octane rating, it has a very good lubricating property. The lead aditive once exposed to the combustion process becomes metalic lead particles which helped coat the inside of the conbustion chamber and valve seats reducing wear in the locations. It was removed because of the damage it caused to the catalytic converter. The oil industry produced the catalytic converter as the saviour to their profits after they were told to reduce emmisions, rather than develope a mor expensive to manufacture clean gasoline, they offered up the "dry" catalytic converter, because the lead would cause premature failure by poisoning and blocking the catalyst with metalic lead particles, they were instrumental in the change to unleaded fuels.
Leaded gasoline, while being "pure" is not pure for a catalyst system to deal with and will kill the CAT. I made no other claims, I did draw on this to show that small amounts of chemicals / additives in gasoline CAN cause specific damage to a catalytic converter. Leaded petrol WILL kill the cat in less than a tank full.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | | Not what I was saying at all, I was responding to your comment about Acetone being "an old race trick", what does something that is used in a race environment have in common with a car in an urban, start - stop driving scenario? I have seen race cars fueled by 100% alcohol, are you suggesting I should be using 100% alcohol in my petrol engine while running about town? |
| [TN] Nathan wrote: | Did I say that? Nope.... Was I talking about alcohol based racing , nope.
No a valid arguement. |
Nope, you did'nt mention that, but neither did I make certain claims or assertions that seemed to pick up on.
Using the fact that Acetone has been used in a race environment means NOTHING, what kind of comparison is that to the driving style encountered on the roads around town? Unless you drive like Sterling Moss while going to the shops, this is not a valid argument. An engine that is being flogged HARD will show VERY different burn and wear characteristics to that of a car chugging along at 30mph day after day.
No valid argument.
| [TN] Nathan wrote: | [b]Red herring. This means exactly what you think it means: introducing irrelevant facts or arguments to distract from the question at hand..
| Silicon Skum wrote: | | ....................................................OoKay...... |
Aight. |
Umkay.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | Lack of a sense of humour there Nate.
As much as you are pointing out that I have no proof that anything will be damaged, can I ask to see YOUR proof that it is safe to use and no harm will come to any of the fuel system and engine components? |
| [TN] Nathan wrote: | Sure, I will use it myself and I am as paranoid as the next guy. No 0.02% concentration of any item in any fuel will cause the sweeping catastrophic problems you are bringing up.
You could pour the same concentration of pure acid into such a large volume and it would technically be so weak, you would have a hard time detecting it or showing that it damaged something.
Think of it. 0.0390625 gallons of acetone in 20 gallons of gasoline. |
That would depend on the concentration of the acid, I think 4 molar acid would still be dectable in that voulme easily.
I'm not pouring acid into my fuel tank, thats for sure.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | | Ordinary oil will cause rubber to perish quickly, but to a visual inspection there does not seem to be any obvious sign of damage (perhaps a bit of swelling), what has acetone done that can't be seen without further testing? |
| [TN] Nathan wrote: | I'm sorry, oil destroys rubber?  Ummm.. If that was true, all our engines would have seized up completely.
If you can sit a piece of rubber in a jar of acetone for 1 year and pull it out and it is perfectly fine, how can an additive of this low concentration cause the damage you are STATING will happen.
It's pure chemistry and logic. |
YES rubber is perished by oil, the rubber used in car engines is specifically made to have a higher resistance to oil, usually it is Nitrile rubber. Nitrile is the common word for acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (NBR). It is a cheap product, known for its resistance to oil (low-temperature, refined oils, that is). It is commonly used in the vast majority of standard O-ring seals.
Other types of rubber such as latex will be destroyed quickly with oil, hence the reason condoms made with this state NOT to use oil based lubricants. Sythetic rubbers have to be made specifically for oil contact, you can't just bung a bit rubber in there and expect it work just as good.
You still have not provided any proof that the rubber part submerged in acetone was not deteriorated in any way, there was no mention of how the author deemed this to be unaffected. What TYPE of rubber did he test? was it nitrile, or just ANY bit of rubber he had to hand.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | | Nate, you are posting here and saying that it is safe and no harm will come to the components when in conatact with fuel treated with acetone, where is your PROOF, just as I have a lack of evidence, so do you. I would hate for someone to view this forum and cause damage to the car, truck / whatever, simply because they read your post and assumed you know something they don't. |
| [TN] Nathan wrote: | You see, pure basic concentration chemistry and a knowledge of an engine's computer and internal components easily will show that something at this low of a concentration to cause the "OMG, YOUR ENGINE IS GOING TO DIE AND MELT AWAY" arguements being thrown around this thread.
It is pure 80% paranoia and ignorance with the other 20% being explainable concerns and knowledge about our emission systems. I am going to try it, and I am putting my truck in the testing pool to actually try it.
Now when it comes to the last sentence in your quote above, I take that a little personally. I don't need someone walking behind me protecting the readers from me.
I take offense when someone thinks that I am out to pull the wool over their eyes and destroy their engine. I don't need you protecting the internet from me.
DO YOU REALLY THINK I WOULD BLINDLY TELL SOMEONE TO TRY SOMETHING THAT WOULD DESTROY THEIR PROPERTY IF I DIDN'TTHINK IT WAS SAFE? JESUS DUDE, GIVE ME A LITTLE CREDIT HERE. 
IF SO, I MIGHT AS WELL TAKE DOWN THE OVERCLOCKING SECTION TONIGHT SEEING THEY CAN DESTROY THEIR $4000 COMPUTER....... |
I'm not trying to step on any toes here Nate, however it needed to be said that there was NO information about the *possible* downside to trying this. Better someone out there reads both sides of the argument then decide for themselves. There is a distict lack of proof for both sides of the argument, You are quoting an unknown source of information, and I'm quoting unfounded information simply because neither one of us has any definitive proof one way or the other.
We know the dangers about overclocking, not all of them are unfounded, I have killed a number of processors through pushing them way above the rated speed for extended periods of time. My AMD 2200+xp chip is now toast, it's been failing slowly over the past few months due to electromigration, due to the fact it has been running as a 2500+ at 1.82V for the last 4 or 5 years 24 /7 and under full load (it's a number cruncher). it will now barely run stable at 1300Mhz for more than 20mins. It IS the CPU, tried a different chip, all is fine.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | Don't worry Nate, I know a flame war when I see one, no problems here, just diferences in opinions.
§ |
| [TN] Nathan wrote: | | Cool! |
Ice cold.
_________________
my sig disappeared from the image host (?)
But at least I have a Josh Award! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Spiegel
SirTweaksabit
Joined: 06 Sep 2004
Posts: 348
Location: Morgan City, LA
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Noxide wrote: | | Ive herd of styrofoam in gasoline raises the octaine. I dont know how true that is. |
That's also a way to make napalm...I would probably suggest against it But following you down the road, your exhaust would probably look real cool(like the batmobile) until something bad happened
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Noxide
SirTweaksabit
Joined: 15 Jan 2005
Posts: 362
Location: houston tx
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i dont think they ment putting the styrofoam in the tank but mixing it in a container and pour the liquid content into the gastank....leaving out any solids or mush in the container.
_________________
Asus M2N32-SLI Deluxe, AM2 4600 x2, 150GB Raptor Exteme, 7900GTX in SLI Corsair XMS DDR2 CAS3, Custom DD Water Cooling |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[TN] Nathan
ALMIGHTY PWNER!
Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 7406
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2005 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Silicon Skum wrote: | I'm a fairly open minded person, I NEVER rule anything out, I just reduce it to a percentage of possibility.
As I said, I'm in this to find out for myself. I'll conduct a few tests to see just what is going on with acetone, there may be something in it, there might not. Only one way to find out..... |
Very true, and this is what I want to see. Some testing and trying it out, not just stating the "unconfirmed" side affects and walking away.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | | I agree, but I'm the type of person who preferes proof as to blind faith, guess I'm kinda agnostic in that sense. |
Yes, there is always a little bit of proof needed to try, but flat out denying it based on these concerns are really not a reason not to try it.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | Hmmm, I'm actually suprised by that, I would have thought there would have been a reduction in power with the air box setup. There may still be a bit more room for improvement with your cold air feed setup, in that case. By the sound of things that standard paper air filter was REALY not up to the job.
I love that induction roar sound myself. |
Yip, it helped, but ;et's move on from this, it is not related to this discussion.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | True, but there are other types of "scam", not just the money orientated tpe. Some people just like atention, some like to pretend they are some briliant scientist type etc. A few years ago there was a character on the newsgroups, he hung about in alt.2600, called himself "Archangel". He claimed to be a long term hacker, he claimed a LOT of BS that never happened. I had some dealings with this guy, sometimes he seemed belivable, the rest of the time it was pure BS.
While I'm not comparing the acetone author to Dan Garstekie, it worth thinking about some of his claims, how do we KNOW he's ever tested anything?
I know there is other anecdotal evidence of people using this which i'm more inclined to belive than any individual. |
Going through your life being cynical based on these weird examples is not healthy at all.
It liek saying you got screwed over by a idiot on ebay and because of that, you won't buy Starbucks coffee.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | | OK, it was a weak argument. |
Thanks for understanding that.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | | The MEMS ECU is used in some sports cars, not just cheapo run-abouts, Lotus Exige, 340R, Caterham superlight and the Westfield FW400 to name four. I know that there are some similar types of ECU floating about. |
Lotus Exige is a Toyota 1.9L inline four and it has knock sensors for sure.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | | Probably just being taxed through the nose, like everything else. 90% of our fuel costs are tax, technically it only costs me £1 to fill my old mini tank, the other £9 goes to tax. |
Yea, Canada is like that too.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | | Yeah, so if there is any improved MPG readings, then it looks like the Acetone is doing something to the way the fuel burns. If not then it could just be the improved octane rating allowing an ECU engine to produce more power by advancing the ignition timing. This is going to be the test that reveals what the acetone is doing to the fuel. Should be interesting. I will also try to run my car on 97 / 98 RON fuel with the correct spark advance and then run the test with the 95Ron fuel treated with the acetone with the higher spark advance, note the MPG / any pinking and then try the 97Ron fuel treated with acetone and see what difference there is in the MPG tests. There could be some usefull info from this that might help to get better MPG results for others trying this. |
Very true, and now you are seeing why you should at least "TRY" it. Either way, you will learn something.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | | depending on what you mean by "volatile", the gasoline will be more volatile than than the acetone, however the acetone does have a FAR lower flash point, boiling point and vaporisation point than iso-octane, so it may be doing something in the combustion process. |
vaporisation = volatility
volatile
adj 1: (chemistry) evaporating readily at normal temperatures and
pressures; "volatile oils"; "volatile solvents" [ant:
nonvolatile]
| Silicon Skum wrote: | Nate, a tested item does not have to burst into flames or explode before you could say it has failed. I know that some plastics such as perspex (plexiglass) will react very strongly with acetone, just because you don't see something melt does not mean it's unaffected. Lower concentrations do not always mean that a reaction will not take place.
I think we'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one. |
Yip, the plastics and rubbers in our fuel system are MADE to not react to solvents. You saying it will melt with one and not the other is the one thing that concerns me.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | I'm not using the scam argument, I am however using the argument that there are other ideas, methods, information etc. out there that does not have a basis in fact or proof. There are plenty of people out ther who are providing information about fuel systems and devices (no sales pitch, just the info on how to build it / how it works) and there are some types of evidence that these devices are seemingly working.
Have you ever heard the urban legend of the car that could run on water as a fuel and how it was hushed up by the oil companies? well I don't know if you ever heard of the "Geet fuel processor" which alows an engine to run on 25% fuel (ANY type of liquid fuel) and 75% WATER. Now, the thing is, is this really working or is it just an engine that is running on a **VERY** lean mix of fuel and using water vapor / steam to help the engine run by cooling the combustion chamber and control the burn of the fuel?? I dunno either but I have seen plenty of anecdotal "evidence" to show that something could be happening. Check out this site, they have hooked the engine up to a exhaust gas analyser:
http://bingofuel.online.fr/geet/html/fp5ken.htm
Do a little google search for the Geet fuel processor plans, I think you will be stumped by how it is alledged to work. I know *I* have BIG trouble with some of the reasoning behind this, and I'm still willing to belive it is doing something (now, if it is or is not safe for the engine to work like this is another matter).
Not comparing Acetone to this, but it's an interesting thing non the less. |
Off topic and not related. Completely unnecessary in this discussion.
Someone scratched my car in the Walmart parking lot yesterday, therefore, you shouldn't eat fish anymore.
You get the point.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | As a matter of fact, I do know about these chemicals, and No, I do not "blindly" accept them, but I have little choise but to do so unless I open a refinery in my back yard and brew my own brand. There are a number of chemicals added to petrol that I have big concerns about, namely the lead replacement additives which are NOT needed, they are only there because the lead caused the "dry" CAT to be poisoned and block up with lead particles. Lead in petrol CAN be removed in a certain type of catalyst, but no company is willing to go an alternative route and develope a leaded fuel catalyst system. The oil industry was the leading factor in the removal of leaded petrol, not because of healt issues, just monitary ones. The oil companies can now carry on providing poor quality fuel for use in engines with out having to adjust any of the refinary methods to produce a cleaner fuel that is safe and efficient.
There was a fuel used by the early engines called "automotive spirit", this was a very clean burning fuel that had a complete burn and produced only H2O and CO2 as byproducts of the combustion process. This was WAY to costly for oil companies to produce for a mass market, also the fuel was limited to a maximum of 50 octane rating, so was not suitable for use in high compression engines, which is the only practical way to develope more power in a given power plant. Things could have been developed to allow the clean fuel to be used, but the oil companies would not be able to make such huge profits, result is we got crap fuel and they got VERY VERY rich. |
This has no bearing on acetone. Not a scientific comparision.
Today I stepped on an ant and because of that, you should only pee on maple trees. 
Way too many sweeping general comparisons bro. Not a valid arguement.
Because lead poisoned cat's does NOT mean acetone will.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | I doubt that it will make a significant difference to the fuel volitlity. The reason for the claimed effects of complete burning is based the idea that the acetone is allowing the fuel that has entered the combustion chamber as droplets as opposed to a vapour (so burning poorly), to be dispearsed easier by reducing surface tension. In theory the reduced surfe tension will make the larger drops break up in to far smaller ones which will vapourise easier in the heat of the combustion chamber during the compression / power stroke and so burning completely and producing more bang with the same volume of fuel. The fuel's volitlity has never changed, only the phase change has become more complete to allow the fuel to ignight and burn correctly.
I understand the concept of what is claimed to happen, I'm just having trouble accepting it blindly that this is the case. |
It allows better atomization, and therefore more surface area for the combustion process to interact with. More surface area, more reaction.
Take a cubic foot block of solid gun powder and the same volume of powdered gun powder and tell me which will burn faster.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | And I don't, as I already have mentioned these chemical additive DO poison the cat, they are not so much of a problem with the CAT at operating temp as the catalysts chosen were specific for the intended additve to make sure thse carcinogenic chemicals are not released into the air. They ARE a problem when the cat is below or above operating temperature as they will flow straight through. I am unsure if any of the catalysts in th matrix will react with the acetone or if it will simply pass through. I'm more worried about what happens in the presence of these other chemical ina catalyst, the catalyst's function is to speed up reactions. This is where my concern is.
As for your testing point, I do belive that FAR greater testing has been conducted in controled environments on these chemicals than have sofar been done with acetone. And yes, some of the chemicals tested did show negative results in the catalyst, however they were still deemed accepatble (who wants to make a CAT that lasts the life of the car, no money in that!). |
Deemed acceptable by whom? The oil companies? Whatever improves their botom line at the end of quarter will deem things "acceptable".
| Silicon Skum wrote: | I'm not even sure where to start with that remark. I never made any such claims nor implied them. I'm beging to think you are reading something I'm not seeing.
What does LEADED petrol have in common "pure" gasoline? pure gasoline is esentialy nothing but iso-octane, not that it could be used as "gasoline". Gasoline is a blend of chemicals that perform specific functions, not just that of reducing pre-ignition, these chemicals also reduce wear in the moving parts of the engine that are exposed to the comustion process - pistons, rings, valve stems and valve seats. This is one of the benifits that was found after lead was used to raise the octane rating, it has a very good lubricating property. The lead aditive once exposed to the combustion process becomes metalic lead particles which helped coat the inside of the conbustion chamber and valve seats reducing wear in the locations. It was removed because of the damage it caused to the catalytic converter. The oil industry produced the catalytic converter as the saviour to their profits after they were told to reduce emmisions, rather than develope a mor expensive to manufacture clean gasoline, they offered up the "dry" catalytic converter, because the lead would cause premature failure by poisoning and blocking the catalyst with metalic lead particles, they were instrumental in the change to unleaded fuels.
Leaded gasoline, while being "pure" is not pure for a catalyst system to deal with and will kill the CAT. I made no other claims, I did draw on this to show that small amounts of chemicals / additives in gasoline CAN cause specific damage to a catalytic converter. Leaded petrol WILL kill the cat in less than a tank full. |
I never compared gasoline to leaded gas.
Also, they didn't remove leaded gas because it ruined cats. They removed it because it was allowing lead based compounds into our environment.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | Nope, you did'nt mention that, but neither did I make certain claims or assertions that seemed to pick up on.
Using the fact that Acetone has been used in a race environment means NOTHING, what kind of comparison is that to the driving style encountered on the roads around town? Unless you drive like Sterling Moss while going to the shops, this is not a valid argument. An engine that is being flogged HARD will show VERY different burn and wear characteristics to that of a car chugging along at 30mph day after day.
No valid argument. |
Yes it is a valid arguement. If you think that the combustion process is different at 8000rpms rather than at 200rpms, you are seriously mistaken. It all involves combustion.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | That would depend on the concentration of the acid, I think 4 molar acid would still be dectable in that voulme easily.
I'm not pouring acid into my fuel tank, thats for sure. |
An example, but realistically, would not affect anything.
You can pour sugar in your gas tank in that concentration and the engine will be sweet...I mean fine. WOOOO! Nother FUNNAY! .
| Silicon Skum wrote: | YES rubber is perished by oil, the rubber used in car engines is specifically made to have a higher resistance to oil, usually it is Nitrile rubber. Nitrile is the common word for acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (NBR). It is a cheap product, known for its resistance to oil (low-temperature, refined oils, that is). It is commonly used in the vast majority of standard O-ring seals.
Other types of rubber such as latex will be destroyed quickly with oil, hence the reason condoms made with this state NOT to use oil based lubricants. Sythetic rubbers have to be made specifically for oil contact, you can't just bung a bit rubber in there and expect it work just as good.
You still have not provided any proof that the rubber part submerged in acetone was not deteriorated in any way, there was no mention of how the author deemed this to be unaffected. What TYPE of rubber did he test? was it nitrile, or just ANY bit of rubber he had to hand. |
Ah, but you didn't say nitrile rubber did you? You said rubber.
The person used several different type of materials such as nylon and nitrile seal o-rings from automotive applications and regular old rubber and fuel line tube and nothing happened.
They also did this test in a ford diesel forum and nothing happened.
| Silicon Skum wrote: | I'm not trying to step on any toes here Nate, however it needed to be said that there was NO information about the *possible* downside to trying this. Better someone out there reads both sides of the argument then decide for themselves. There is a distict lack of proof for both sides of the argument, You are quoting an unknown source of information, and I'm quoting unfounded information simply because neither one of us has any definitive proof one way or the other.
We know the dangers about overclocking, not all of them are unfounded, I have killed a number of processors through pushing them way above the rated speed for extended periods of time. My AMD 2200+xp chip is now toast, it's been failing slowly over the past few months due to electromigration, due to the fact it has been running as a 2500+ at 1.82V for the last 4 or 5 years 24 /7 and under full load (it's a number cruncher). it will now barely run stable at 1300Mhz for more than 20mins. It IS the CPU, tried a different chip, all is fine. |
The only proof is to try it and that is what I am asking.
At the start, you were making broad sweeping claims about "how this would ruin the rubber and cat" and now you are coming around to see that in the concentration they are asking, they negative traits you claim have a slim to none chance of happening.
_________________
Owner & Administrator
www.Tweaknews.net
www.Pocketbookpinch.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JayDubya
TWEAKGURU
Joined: 01 Oct 2003
Posts: 5496
Location: ames, ia
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2005 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting to say the least. Alot of good points have been stated. I might try to run a few experiments of my own on a few of the effects. Mainly the effect of acetone on certain components of the fuel system.
Hopefully i can get to this. Things have been a little hectic lately.
I'm a little weary of trying this but if i can prove little to no ill effects, it'll be a definate go.
_________________
JayDubya aka JW Jay JD ^> ﺵ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ham_fisT
Lord of the Tweak
Joined: 20 Jun 2004
Posts: 2244
Location: Gone Fishin'
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2005 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
WHY does everyone have to prove something...Acetone has been used with NO NEGATIVE EFFECTS..FOR YEARS AND YEARS in the form of Berrymans, and other brands of fuel additives.
in the concentrations advertised....there will be no "Melting" of your engine parts, nor "Instantanious failure" of the catalyst system.
this thread is very hard to keep clicking on, and is getting less, and less informative. so I'm not coming back here.
I will post results of MY use of acetone in the fuel system, in a new thread
_________________
Yeah....... ok |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Silicon Skum
UberTweaker
Joined: 26 Jul 2004
Posts: 1156
Location: UK, Geordie land
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm doing a few basic tests to see just what it is that Acetone does to the fuel / engine. So far I have soaked a *used* rubber gasket seal in pure acetone, found the material HAD swelled slightly, not a huge amount, but was easy to see in comparison to an identical seal that had been about the same as the one tested.(had swelled by about 1 - 1.5mm in 24hrs). This might not be a bad thing, if you have a leaky gasket / O ring, this will help to seal up the leak. I know of a few products available that stop oil leaks by swelling rubber seals, they may use acetone. I will check on this soon.
I've been reading up on rubber in contact with hydrocarbons, seems that natural rubber only has a few percentage of it's total volume that is disolved by acetone, rubber will NOT disolve, but IS affected. This is what causes the slight swelling as opposed to disolving in acetone. There are still some issues about acetone affecting cheap grade Nitile rubber floating around on the net though. Still nothing conclusive.
I'm about to do some basic testing on the carbon gum removal ability of the acteone, I belive that this may be where most of the MPG boost comes from. I will try it with two plugs from my old Mini (plugs are old, and were sooted up due to rich mixture), one with pure acetone, the other in the correct mix of petrol / acetone. I have just decoked 2 cylinders of my engine with Redex, will try to use acetone to decoke to reamaining 2 bores. I'm not able to pull the head off to check, so visual inspection will be with a bright light and small mirror down plug hole.
Once I replace the plugs with new ones and get the car timing and mixture corectly set up, I will run a few tests to find the MPG, then test the MPG again, with the acetone treated fuel.
I'm not sure what to expect from the test, the car has a 1275CC engine and can get about 34MPG city and 43MPG motorway. I suspect that the MPG gains would be more on an engine that has lower MPG in standard form. Only time will tell.
§
_________________
my sig disappeared from the image host (?)
But at least I have a Josh Award! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[TN] Nathan
ALMIGHTY PWNER!
Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 7406
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just make sure you get the economy from a couple of tanks of straight gas before you add the acetone.
_________________
Owner & Administrator
www.Tweaknews.net
www.Pocketbookpinch.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Silicon Skum
UberTweaker
Joined: 26 Jul 2004
Posts: 1156
Location: UK, Geordie land
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
OLD post draged up.......... 
Well I have the results of my experiment with acetone - It ATE the rubber seals on my mechanical fuel pump, and weakend the rubber fuel line. The mechanic rebuilding my car asked me what kind of cheapo petrol I was using and where did I get it from. The fuel line was probably age related as well though, but the fuel pump should have been OK considering the low milage on the car.
He did mention the engine was unusually free from carbon / gum deposits though, so I think this might be where the secret to where the the higher milage comes from.
The only thing I've added to my tank that gave a noticable improvement (a few years ago) was Pure Methanol and a small amount of Toluene, the ignition timing was a little out when I did this (not sure if it was advanced or retarded) and it's a distributer ignition system, so it does not advance or retard the timing depending on fuel octane like modern ECU controled car. I actually gained quiet a lot more power and torque from the engine than I would normaly (even when fully tuned up), and the milage seemed to increase quite a bit (sadly I don't remember what it was, but it was higher than standard). That might also be down to the design of the A series engine (which is mostly the same as it was 50Years ago).
Methanol is not good for the rubber seals either, so until I can find a fuel pump that can cope, I don't think I'll be running any exotic fuels for a while.
SS
_________________
my sig disappeared from the image host (?)
But at least I have a Josh Award! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[TN] Nathan
ALMIGHTY PWNER!
Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 7406
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
I highly doubt 0.234%% acetone ate your rubber at all.
Acetone does not affect rubber that much at 100% and does nothing to it at 0.234%% concentration.
Results of common octane additives:
Xylene:
Rubber: D-Severe Effect
Viton: B = Good -- Minor Effect, slight corrosion
or discoloration.
Toluene:
Rubber:D-Severe Effect
Viton: C-Fair
Acetone:
Rubber: C-Fair
Viton: D-Severe Effect
so as you see, the normal octane additives that are used in HIGHER concentrations in todays gas have the SAME relative affects on these components than acetone.
Pumnp gas is harder on your rubber components than the acetone is in this tiny concentration.
_________________
Owner & Administrator
www.Tweaknews.net
www.Pocketbookpinch.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Silicon Skum
UberTweaker
Joined: 26 Jul 2004
Posts: 1156
Location: UK, Geordie land
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, I did a little background research on acetone and other fuel additives and came to pretty much the same conclusion, but the only "evidence" that something to do with the acetone causing failure, lies with the fact that the rubber section of the fuel line (about 2ft between the metal fuel line and the fuel pump / carb). This was replaced not so long ago, maybe 3 years or so, yet the interior of the pipe has gone soft and slightly swelled. If you wipe the suface of the interior with a bit of cloth or a finger, you are left with a thin black rubbery slime like coating.
I have been thinking about this and doing a little research (without much luck) to see if this is NOT caused directly by the acetone, but rather acetone reacting with some of the other fuel additives. Im aware that there is a difference in the formulation of fuel used in the UK as compared to the USA (not sure about Canadian fuels, but I asume they are similar to the US), so there may be something in the UK fuel that has been reacting with the acetone?
The car has not been used much for the last 6 months, so maybe the fuel sitting in the fuel line has degraded and some break-down products from some intereaction with the acetone has caused this. I would assume that nearly all the cars that have perviously run acetone, have been daily drivers and not left for any great length of time with stale fuel still in the tanks and lines.
I know some test have been done with ruber in jars of fuel and acetone, but maybe there is somthing missing from the test that occours in a car's fuel system - atmospheric conditions maybe?
I'm going to continue the tests with acetone, I can get a spare fuel pump from the scrap yard in case of any failure, and the flexi fuel line is cheap enough and easy to replace.
One benifit of the old Mini is that there is very little in the way of rubber parts on the fuel system and easy to swap out. 
Has anyone got any increased milage to report yet?
I did see some evidence, but cant confirm due to the engine needing a tune up.
SS
_________________
my sig disappeared from the image host (?)
But at least I have a Josh Award! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[TN] Nathan
ALMIGHTY PWNER!
Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 7406
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But remember, if I wipe my rubber windsheild wipers I get black crud as well and they are only exposed to water.
_________________
Owner & Administrator
www.Tweaknews.net
www.Pocketbookpinch.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Silicon Skum
UberTweaker
Joined: 26 Jul 2004
Posts: 1156
Location: UK, Geordie land
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| [TN] Nathan wrote: | | But remember, if I wipe my rubber windsheild wipers I get black crud as well and they are only exposed to water. |
Actually, that more to do with UV exposure, causes rubber (and many other materials) to break down. They also are exposed to methanol in screen wash - equally as bad for rubber.
Point taken though.
I think I might try a new experiment with Acetone, I should try different RON ratings of fuel, it's a carb'ed engine that was designed for 95RON so at standard timings on the dizzy, I should see a slight milage drop by using 97 / 98RON fuel. if Acetone can help a fuel burn better, it should bring me closer to that of 95RON. a simple test and should be easy to complete in just two tanks of fuel and using the same driving style and route. Sound plausible?
I'm also going to try a new experiment with Methanol, though it wont be a long term test as methanol reacts badly with aluminium, and the carb body is made from aluminium (and to Merkins reading this, it's spelled right - it's Aluminium! ).
SS
_________________
my sig disappeared from the image host (?)
But at least I have a Josh Award! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Silicon Skum
UberTweaker
Joined: 26 Jul 2004
Posts: 1156
Location: UK, Geordie land
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 14, 2010 3:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
After a lengthy test over the last few years, I can now give my final conclusion on acetone in fuel:
It doesn't work.
After an initial increase (possibly due to carbon and fuel gum deposits being removed, or my imagination) I saw no real difference when I factored in all relevant data (tyre pressure, air temp, engine temp, distance driven, weather conditions, etc,etc). what little variation I did see, seemed to come down to how my car was 'feeling' on that particular day...
Well, it was worth a shot.
I did have some results with the Methanol additive though. I was given a bottle of "Nitrox Hot Shot Power Boost" which claims to increase BHP by increasing the octane rating of the fuel. Now on a carb'ed car without any manual adjustments to the timing this is pretty much useless as far as horse power is concerned. But I figured what the hell and stuck it in the tank for a laugh (figured it would clean the fuel system if nothing else) I did actually see an imediate responce - the car engine was running smoother and was pulling much better on hills. Now I don't use cheap fuel, so this wasn't to do with that, and the engine timing was set using the fuel I can buy locally (98 RON).
I don't know why, but it was better. So I looked up the safety data sheet for the chemical makeup of the Nitrox, and mixed my own batch up for MUCH cheaper than the Nitrox (£8.50 for 500ml - not bloody likely! ). Basically it's mostly Methanol with about 3% Toluene, and I add 500ml to roughly 28 Litres of petrol (which is a full tank of fuel on an original Mini). works a treat.
No MPG improvement, but the engine runs much better, and has a noticable amount of extra 'grunt' on hills and when accelerating. So still a good result. :)
Don't know why this is the case, Methanol should in theory lower the performance rather than help it, or at least make no difference to my car. Meh, a result is a result. Sadly It's not a long term thing however, methanol and aluminuim carbs don't play nice, so it's only used occasionally.
SS
_________________
my sig disappeared from the image host (?)
But at least I have a Josh Award! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sally
UberTweaker
Joined: 31 Mar 2004
Posts: 1158
Location: WA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 2:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
2Long2Read
_________________
|¤| |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[TN] Nathan
ALMIGHTY PWNER!
Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 7406
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fussnfeathers
Lord of the Tweak
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 2763
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hey Sal!!!
_________________
Big enough to scare you |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[TN] Nathan
ALMIGHTY PWNER!
Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 7406
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Silicon Skum wrote: | After a lengthy test over the last few years, I can now give my final conclusion on acetone in fuel:
It doesn't work.
After an initial increase (possibly due to carbon and fuel gum deposits being removed, or my imagination) I saw no real difference when I factored in all relevant data (tyre pressure, air temp, engine temp, distance driven, weather conditions, etc,etc). what little variation I did see, seemed to come down to how my car was 'feeling' on that particular day...
Well, it was worth a shot.
I did have some results with the Methanol additive though. I was given a bottle of "Nitrox Hot Shot Power Boost" which claims to increase BHP by increasing the octane rating of the fuel. Now on a carb'ed car without any manual adjustments to the timing this is pretty much useless as far as horse power is concerned. But I figured what the hell and stuck it in the tank for a laugh (figured it would clean the fuel system if nothing else) I did actually see an imediate responce - the car engine was running smoother and was pulling much better on hills. Now I don't use cheap fuel, so this wasn't to do with that, and the engine timing was set using the fuel I can buy locally (98 RON).
I don't know why, but it was better. So I looked up the safety data sheet for the chemical makeup of the Nitrox, and mixed my own batch up for MUCH cheaper than the Nitrox (£8.50 for 500ml - not bloody likely! ). Basically it's mostly Methanol with about 3% Toluene, and I add 500ml to roughly 28 Litres of petrol (which is a full tank of fuel on an original Mini). works a treat.
No MPG improvement, but the engine runs much better, and has a noticable amount of extra 'grunt' on hills and when accelerating. So still a good result. :)
Don't know why this is the case, Methanol should in theory lower the performance rather than help it, or at least make no difference to my car. Meh, a result is a result. Sadly It's not a long term thing however, methanol and aluminuim carbs don't play nice, so it's only used occasionally.
SS |
Just FYI, that little bottle of octane boost will raise your octane from 87 to 87.2. It won't be detectable to your engine.
_________________
Owner & Administrator
www.Tweaknews.net
www.Pocketbookpinch.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fussnfeathers
Lord of the Tweak
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 2763
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I suppose it would depend on the conditions. I'd throw a bottle of a different octane booster in every now and again, and I can agree there's a marginal difference, if you're actually paying attention. Not enough that I'd want to drop an extra $5 a tank every fillup, or go to the hassle of mixing my own........but enough. I'd use it on long trips along with some already-higher octane than I regularly used.
_________________
Big enough to scare you |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sally
UberTweaker
Joined: 31 Mar 2004
Posts: 1158
Location: WA
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Placebo.
_________________
|¤| |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fussnfeathers
Lord of the Tweak
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 2763
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
/shrug probably. I never made it a habit enough to sit and stucdy the results. I figured if nothing else the slightly hotter burn would help clean things out a bit, and that was that.
_________________
Big enough to scare you |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[TN] Nathan
ALMIGHTY PWNER!
Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 7406
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| fussnfeathers wrote: | | /shrug probably. I never made it a habit enough to sit and stucdy the results. I figured if nothing else the slightly hotter burn would help clean things out a bit, and that was that. |
Actually octane lowers the burn temperature and makes the gas less easy to ignite and stop preignition thus allowing your engine to advance the timing and run leaner and thus giving you more power.
_________________
Owner & Administrator
www.Tweaknews.net
www.Pocketbookpinch.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fussnfeathers
Lord of the Tweak
Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 2763
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2010 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is why I work on computers.
_________________
Big enough to scare you |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Silicon Skum
UberTweaker
Joined: 26 Jul 2004
Posts: 1156
Location: UK, Geordie land
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 11, 2010 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| [TN] Nathan wrote: |
Just FYI, that little bottle of octane boost will raise your octane from 87 to 87.2. It won't be detectable to your engine. |
It could raise the octane to 100 and my engine wouldn't detect it - on old cars the carbs and distributer based timing need to be set up manually for the fuel used. But yeah those octane boosters are mainly a waste of time and money, unless your engine is heavily tweaked with a blower, agressive timing and compression etc. Then and only then will you actually see something.
That's the strange part about adding in the methanol, it should cause my engine to lack a little power, instead it runs much smoother. Dunno why, timing and fueling seem to be pretty much spot on (if a little on the rich side occasionally). Heh, it's a 50 year old engine design originally modified to run fuel as it was in the early 1990's, my guess is that modern fuels just don't burn the same as the old stuff. That's what the modern car's ECU is really for - to work out how to actually burn that crap you just filled the tank with...
SS
_________________
my sig disappeared from the image host (?)
But at least I have a Josh Award! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
