[TweakNews.net Forum] :: View topic - Acetone In Fuel Said to Increase Mileage 15-35%

Acetone In Fuel Said to Increase Mileage 15-35%
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

[TweakNews.net Forum] Forum Index -> Automotive Problems & Tweaking

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Silicon Skum
UberTweaker

Joined: 26 Jul 2004
Posts: 1156
Location: UK, Geordie land

Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 8:56 am Post subject:

[quote="[TN] Nathan"]

Silicon Skum wrote:

There are a few different chemicals that can be added to fuel in cars
*SNIP*quote]

So you are saying that because an environmental firm doesn't back it that it won't be valid?

A lot of people are also stating "Why wouldn't the oil companies use it?" question.

There is an easy answer to this. Why would you introduce something into your product that has people buying less of your product when you include it?

My point was that if this is such a well known and prooven / documented method of boosting MPG in cars, SOMEBODY in the environmental side of things would have released a statement promoting the use (even if it was just for PR, rather than a true backing of the concept). In the environmental arena, if someone has not mentioned a method of helping the enviroment, there is usually good reason. there have been far wilder and stupid / impractical ideas mentioned in the past.

In my old Mini I use a product called Redex, which is baisically just kerosene, it's been around for YEARS in the UK. In the past it's made the same sort of claims, most of which seem unfounded. The reason I use this additive in the fuel tank, is to reduce the carbon build up in the combustion chambers. A small 30 - 50ml shot in each cylinder bore with the plugs removed works very well at removing carbon and gum from the piston heads, bores, rings and cylinder head / valves (the poor mans de-coke) plus you get to fill the entire street with acrid white smoke

. in older carb'ed cars the combustion is not as good as in modern engines with tighter tolerances and automatic fuel adjustments. I would'nt DREAM of putting this stuff anywhere near the new Mini's fuel system. Many of these "wonder products" are simply just a de-coke or injector cleaner, and in a well abused engine (most people do not take proper care of the engine / fuel system) can produce very impressive results.

Silicon Skum wrote:

Alcohol has a higer Octane rating (resistance to pre-ignition) and as such can take advantage of a MUCH higher compression ratio, up to 16:1 as opposed to the more common 8.*:1 / 10.*:1 ratios found in most petrol engines.

Quote:

As a user of the ethanol based fuel in the winter time here in Canada, there is definite reasons why I would not support alcohol based fuels. My truck runs a lot worse during the winter with the winter fuel and the fuel economy is crap and almost 3 MPG less than when they introduce the summer based fuels back at the pumps in the latter part of June.

Ahhh, now you did'nt read the bit about compression ratios used in alcohol fuelers. What compression ratio does your truck use? I'm guessing it will be a LOT less than the 12 - 16:1 ratio needed for decent burn / performance in an alcohol fueler. You would'nt expect a truck with a 4:1 ratio burning AV gas to have a better MPG than a truck with a 10.1:1 ratio burning regular 95RON pumped gas, would you? In a winter grade fuel (we don't get gasohol / winter grade fuel here in the UK) I assume that it is a 10 - 15% ethanol blend with regular gas? the reason that this will give a poorer response in your truck engine is easy to work out, the ethanol will actually COOL the combustion chamber as it requires more heat energy to vaporise correctly than petroleum (gas) does, also there are less BTUs per measure in alcohol as compared to gasoline and it has a higher octane rating. while this seems like a bad fuel additive, it's not. It all depends on how your engine is set up to use this fuel, if it is not advancing the spark far enough - loss of power / mpg, if the compression is lower than 10:1 - loss of power / mpg. Also because of the lower BTU rating of the ethanol / methonol blend you will need to burn more fuel to comensate in an un-modified engine / ECU fuel map. There are many reasons why some engines run better than others on this fuel, even cylinder head shape can have a big effect on the combustion properties.

This really is not about gasohol being a bad fuel, more of a case of it being a bad fuel for your truck engine's fuel setup. In an engine that has been designed to run this blend as a primary fuel, there would be little or no difference between MPG of straight gas and ethanol blend. It's the same as using high octane fuel in an engine that was not designed to use it, you see none of the benifits of the fuels properties such as the advanced spark ability or resistance to pre-ignition and will have weaker, sooty combustion.

Silicon Skum wrote:

I'm not saying that this is all rubbish, there is some actual evidence of prior use of Acetone in fuel, but I would be VERY carfull about adding ANY chemical to the fuel of a car that was not designed to run that combination. Im more than willing to use an alternative fuel combination that can deliver the claims, but not at the expense of my fuel system componants or engine.

Quote:

A lot of the tested fuel system treatments are actually acetone based including the highly sought after Chemtool B12 which is sworn by in the performance market. Acetone is no worse than any other chemical included in today's gas at the moment. And besides, 150ml per 20 gallons is not going to do any harm to an engine even if you introduce 150 mls of pancake syrup.

Not strictly true. Int he short term, no it would not damage anything beyond repair, but what happens over long term exposure to acetone? Some of the seals used in the fuel system may be susceptable over long periods of time, same can be said about ethanol, some fuel system componants are fine for short term use but can degrade over time.

Silicon Skum wrote:

With modern engine ECU / fuel injection combinations the altered fuel burn byproducts could cause problems with incorrectly adjusted fueling to the engine. The main cause for this would be the Lambda sensor in the exhaust registering a different value that expected and the ECU trying to compensate due to the fact it was programed for standard untreated pumped fuel.

Quote:

The OBDI and OBDII ECU computers in todays cars will not be affected in any way buy such small quantities of a product such as this. The incresed alcohol introduced in the winter in our fuel doesn't kill our O2 sensors, so why would this?

This is not alcohol (ethanol or methanol) so a comparason is not justified. For example:
Say your engine has an ECU setup to run straight gas and has the ability to detect the presence of ethanol blended fuel and has a specific fuel map for each fuel. What happens if the Lambda sensor detects the change in the fuel combustion products and incorectly assumes that it is running with a gasohol or plain gas fuel? would the ECU try to run a richer or leaner fuel map? Both an over rich or lean fuel mix can damage the O2 sensor, CAT and other engine componants, which may not be evident stright away.

Also an important question would be, what damage to the CAT will occour if some unburnt acetone enters the matrix? I know that the cat is easy to damage by allowing over rich / un-burnt fuel in to the matrix. what affect does the acetone have on this? a cold engine does not burn all the fuel efficiently until it has reached a certain temperature, some small anounts of un-burnt fuel will enter the cat during this time, as would the un-burnt acetone. The CAT is an expensive piece of kit to replace!

Silicon Skum wrote:

Does ANYONE know about the longterm affects on the Lambda sensor?, these are not cheap and would outweight the fuel savings if the have to be replaced every few K miles!

Quote:

Replacing an O2 sensor every few 1000 miles? Don't you think that is a little extreme?

Perhaps it is a little extreme, but do you have proof that this is not the case?
The point I'm aiming for is the fact that the original author of the article in the links claims to have been using acetone for over 50 years, there has been a LOT of changes to engine design and fuel systems in that time. what works for an old engine design may NOT be the best for a newer ECU controlled fuel injected engine with expensive power saping polution control devices. As I said earlier, I use Redex in my old car (a carb'ed 'A' Series engine with CAT), I would'nt put the stuff anywhere near the new BMW Mini's fuel system.

washinton post.com may 3rd 2004 wrote:

Roger Crawford, a businessman and independent researcher in Midland, Tex., takes a different approach to fuel economy. He has just begun marketing a gas additive he calls "XtraMPG." He says it boosts octane, burns cleaner and enables motorists to get better fuel economy and buy less expensive grades of gas -- saving 10 to 15 percent overall on gas.

What's in XtraMPG? "Most of us know it as nail polish remover," Crawford says. "It is simple acetone, a nonhazardous organic chemical . . . rated at 150 octane."

Crawford says he'd be happy if everyone bought acetone and added it to their gas tanks. But since people seem reluctant, he's packaging it as XtraMPG.

The EPA hasn't tested XtraMPG. But the EPA's Chandler warns that consumers need to beware what gadgets and fuel additives they add to their cars -- especially with today's computer-controlled fuel-injection systems. "There are other, more practical ways to save fuel," he says.

I'm not dismissing this out of hand, there is some evidence pointing towards it working, but it's all anecdotal - there is a distinct lack of any impartial lab testing showing this to be safe for all fuel systems and actually living up to the hype.
I have been reading up on a lot of alternative fuels and additives for quite some time now, it has to be said that petrolium based fuels are the best for energy content per given measure. That is not to say that there are no alternative fuels that can match or beat gasoline, with a suitable engine design, many alternative fuel combinations can work VERY well compared to the gasoline engine.

In the end it's up to the individual to decide if it's worth the risk to their engine / fuel system
_________________
my sig disappeared from the image host (?)
But at least I have a Josh Award!

Google
Sponsor

Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 8:56 am Post subject: Advertisement

2old2care
Lord of the Tweak

Joined: 09 Jul 2004
Posts: 2817
Location: Pssst....Over Here

Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:22 pm Post subject:

I didn't want to sound totally dismissive....not my intention. Reading around, the only thing I see negative about using acetone as an additive (besides the obvious, don't drink it or light it) is that it is suggested that it be mixed somewhat before adding it into the tank. The logic is that some cars use a neoprene or similar as a flex, in the neck of the tank, and it may damage the neck if straight acetone hits it. Okay, that sounds logical and prudent. Acetone as well as ethanol, methanol, MBTE, and some others were studied in the 70's by the EPA and others as oxygenators for fuel. Some are better than others for different reasons. Obviously, as Sandness said, ethanol is widely used, not because it is the best in performance, though. It is because it does come from a renewable resource, with a distribution system that is sustainable. It doesn't appear (being currently studied) to be as big of an enivornmental impact on ground water and such as some of the others. (particularly MBTE) Methanol is a better performer for example, but it is derived from petro so it is just as suseptable to oil prices as the gas your adding it to, and is not renewable. Enough babbling...here's my opinion... IF a person lives in a place where they get, moisture in the fuel, non-oxygenated fuel, or use cheap non-additive fuels....using an oxygenator such as acetone, will certainly help. I doubt they will see 30% increase in gas milage, or something was probably wrong, such as dirty injectors. But, if you use good quality oxegenated fuels, and have a "newer" car in good shape, you will probably see no noticable difference. my 2¢ _________________ . Liquid-Cooled Q9450 and an EeePC .

sandness
SirTweaksabit

Joined: 18 Oct 2004
Posts: 274
Location: is everything

Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 6:06 pm Post subject:

I went to the hardware store today and was going to pick up some acetone. However, I didn't. I am no chemist, but from doing a little research, I was under the impression that acetone had other aliases, such as methyl ethyl ketone and propanone. Sure enough, the hardware store sold both acetone and methyl ethyl ketone. Same brand, can said the acetone evaporates faster than the ketone. So I'll have to do some more looking into the differences. Anyway, I wanted to try something. So I picked up a can of B-12 Chemtool. It is at least worth a shot- should have around +/- 4oz of acetone in its mixture. I'll be driving home this weekend, so I'll see what difference (if any) I see.

[TN] Nathan
ALMIGHTY PWNER!

Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 7406

Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 8:36 pm Post subject:

Silicon Skum wrote:

This is the thing, you immediately dissmissing it based on past examples. No one is selling you anything, the author is not selling anything. All that he is asking that people try it and see.

You can't base the validity of a practise based on environmental group authentication and acceptance. In fact, this topic is on fuel economy saving, not on whether this has been government approved.

K&N filters also help safe fuel consumption and you don't see greenpeace putting their sticker on the box.

Silicon Skum wrote:

In my old Mini I use a product called Redex, which is baisically just kerosene, it's been around for YEARS in the UK. In the past it's made the same sort of claims, most of which seem unfounded. The reason I use this additive in the fuel tank, is to reduce the carbon build up in the combustion chambers. A small 30 - 50ml shot in each cylinder bore with the plugs removed works very well at removing carbon and gum from the piston heads, bores, rings and cylinder head / valves (the poor mans de-coke) plus you get to fill the entire street with acrid white smoke

True, but comparing a cylinder decarbonization chemical to what we are talking about here is an unfounded comparison.

No offense, but I don't even know why it was brought up.

Silicon Skum wrote:

This is true, I am not a fan of winter fuel and neither is anyone I know of.

Silicon Skum wrote:

This really is not about gasohol being a bad fuel, more of a case of it being a bad fuel for your truck engine's fuel setup. In an engine that has been designed to run this blend as a primary fuel, there would be little or no difference between MPG of straight gas and ethanol blend. It's the same as using high octane fuel in an engine that was not designed to use it, you see none of the benifits of the fuels properties such as the advanced spark ability or resistance to pre-ignition and will have weaker, sooty combustion.

Yes, you will, the computer will be able to avance the timing more. Although the performance difference is not worth the increased price.

But if someone can add a dollars worth of Acetone to their tank and get the same results as higher octance fuel, what is the problem then.

Silicon Skum wrote:

People has immersed every type of plastic and rubber in pure acetone and allowed it to sit for over a year and nothing happened to any of the material.

If nothing happened then, than how can 0.002% acetone concentration all of a sudden pose a risk to fuel components. It just won't.

You are treating this situation like we are pouring a gallon of acetone in our 20 gallon tank which we are not.

Silicon Skum wrote:

The concentration of this chemical will not cause the drastic difference that you are talking about. People run octane in their gas and it is technically a paint thinner so stating that acetone which is a lot cheaper will hurt the system is unfounded.

The acetone will cool the combustion temperature down a bit which will allow the computer to increase the spark advance.

This is addition to the acetone allowing for a more complete burn.

Silicon Skum wrote:

Also an important question would be, what damage to the CAT will occour if some unburnt acetone enters the matrix? I know that the cat is easy to damage by allowing over rich / un-burnt fuel in to the matrix. what affect does the acetone have on this? a cold engine does not burn all the fuel efficiently until it has reached a certain temperature, some small anounts of un-burnt fuel will enter the cat during this time, as would the un-burnt acetone. The CAT is an expensive piece of kit to replace!

What about the unburnt octane like toluene and xylene ruining the cat? Not all companies use alcohol as the octane incresing agent so should we avoid all gas companies that use some other chemicals to increase the octane rating?

Poisoning the cat with a concentration of 0.002% is pretty ridiculous don't you think?

Silicon Skum wrote:

Again, this is your opinion only and has no real basis. This has been a racing trick for years and no engines have packed it in if they used it.

Silicon Skum wrote:

I understand, but there is more proof on their end than anything you have brought forward.

As stated earlier, chemtool B-12 is a 15 oz bottle at a acetone concentration of 20-25% so that would work out to be around 4 fl oz.

People swear by it and have enjoyed the product and the performance and economy differences it has brought to their vehicle.

This is proof that it does help and if it didn't the product would have been gone long ago.

Silicon Skum wrote:

In the end it's up to the individual to decide if it's worth the risk to their engine / fuel system

That is true but you have to understand that no one is selling you anything here. At this low of concentration, it is impossible for the extreme O2 sensor and cat damage opinion you are warning against. If that was the case, be beter stop using fuel injector cleaners and octane enhancers beacause they "could" be just as damaging.

I have no problem trying it and I know a lot about OBDII systems and how they interact with the fuel curve and timing.

We have nothing to lose and only the possibility to gain.
_________________
Owner & Administrator
www.Tweaknews.net
www.Pocketbookpinch.com

[TN] Nathan
ALMIGHTY PWNER!

Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 7406

Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 8:51 pm Post subject:

2old2care wrote:

I didn't want to sound totally dismissive....not my intention.

That is fine. Put just keep your mind open instead of slamming the door immediately.

2old2care wrote:

Reading around, the only thing I see negative about using acetone as an additive (besides the obvious, don't drink it or light it) is that it is suggested that it be mixed somewhat before adding it into the tank. The logic is that some cars use a neoprene or similar as a flex, in the neck of the tank, and it may damage the neck if straight acetone hits it. Okay, that sounds logical and prudent.

No, at 0.002% concentration, nothing will be damaged. As stated earlier, people has immersed these compnents in pure acetone for a year and they came out fine.

People thinking that acetone will melt rubber and plastic need to understand concentration and what a solvent is.

Gas is a solvent, toluene and xylene are solvents, alcohol is a solvent, fuel injector cleaners are solvents but you don't see your fuel system melting away when you use those, so don't expect a tiny dose of acetone to all of a sudden destroy everything.

2old2care wrote:

Acetone as well as ethanol, methanol, MBTE, and some others were studied in the 70's by the EPA and others as oxygenators for fuel. Some are better than others for different reasons. Obviously, as Sandness said, ethanol is widely used, not because it is the best in performance, though. It is because it does come from a renewable resource, with a distribution system that is sustainable. It doesn't appear (being currently studied) to be as big of an enivornmental impact on ground water and such as some of the others. (particularly MBTE) Methanol is a better performer for example, but it is derived from petro so it is just as suseptable to oil prices as the gas your adding it to, and is not renewable.
Enough babbling...here's my opinion...
IF a person lives in a place where they get, moisture in the fuel, non-oxygenated fuel, or use cheap non-additive fuels....using an oxygenator such as acetone, will certainly help. I doubt they will see 30% increase in gas milage, or something was probably wrong, such as dirty injectors. But, if you use good quality oxegenated fuels, and have a "newer" car in good shape, you will probably see no noticable difference. my 2¢

That is your opinion.

But, you might see a difference right? Sure we shouldn't expect 35% difference, but heck, if you get 10% increase, it will still help and it will be extra money in your pocket.

With that being said, we really have nothing to lose. But if you are scared of doing it, that is fine, but don't scare monger people willing to try it.

Not saying that you are doing that, but that is the general negative impression is that people are just paranoid about doing something different or trying something new.

Stating "OMG!!!!!111one, you will destroy everything and ruin your can and O2 sensors!!!" is the exact thing I find ridiculous and completely exaggerated and completely baseless if anyone knows about current fuel additives and enhancers.
_________________
Owner & Administrator
www.Tweaknews.net
www.Pocketbookpinch.com

Ham_fisT
Lord of the Tweak

Joined: 20 Jun 2004
Posts: 2244
Location: Gone Fishin'

Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 9:26 pm Post subject:

I put 3 oz of acetone in my sisters 1999 Pontiac Grand-Am today With only city driving, it will be difficult to tell if there any fuel mileage gains, but we're gonna keep track for the rest of the year. I plan to run 4 tanks with acetone, then 4 tanks without, this should give us accurate a result as I can get. I'll keep you all posted _________________ Yeah....... ok

[TN] Nathan
ALMIGHTY PWNER!

Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 7406

Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 11:16 pm Post subject:

Incorrect mixture. Should be 3oz per 10 gallons. How big is her tank. _________________ Owner & Administrator www.Tweaknews.net www.Pocketbookpinch.com

Ham_fisT
Lord of the Tweak

Joined: 20 Jun 2004
Posts: 2244
Location: Gone Fishin'

Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 11:34 pm Post subject:

the tank is 14 gal. if i'm not mistaken, (4.66 oz for a full tank), I'll go ahead and add another 1.5 oz just for science _________________ Yeah....... ok

sandness
SirTweaksabit

Joined: 18 Oct 2004
Posts: 274
Location: is everything

Posted: Tue Apr 12, 2005 11:52 pm Post subject:

[TN] Nathan wrote:

Incorrect mixture.

Should be 3oz per 10 gallons.

How big is her tank.

Not to be a thorn in your side, but I don't recall seeing 3oz per 10 gal. as the golden ration. If the chart shown in a few of the links is correct, there isn't much difference between 2oz - 4oz range.

Ham, I'd say just try it as is. If it works, you should notice it at with your current 2oz per 10 gal. mix.

[TN] Nathan
ALMIGHTY PWNER!

Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 7406

Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:54 am Post subject:

Ham_fisT wrote:

the tank is 14 gal. if i'm not mistaken, (4.66 oz for a full tank), I'll go ahead and add another 1.5 oz just for science

Don't take offense, I just wanted to keep things even so that we could keep the mixture as common as possible.

_________________
Owner & Administrator
www.Tweaknews.net
www.Pocketbookpinch.com

Ham_fisT
Lord of the Tweak

Joined: 20 Jun 2004
Posts: 2244
Location: Gone Fishin'

Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 1:10 am Post subject:

No worries _________________ Yeah....... ok

Silicon Skum
UberTweaker

Joined: 26 Jul 2004
Posts: 1156
Location: UK, Geordie land

Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 2:02 pm Post subject:

[TN] Nathan wrote:

I'm not dissmissing it on the grounds of past examples, I'm not really dissmissing it at all, there IS some evidence to it working. What I AM dissmissing / questioning is the concept of WHY it works, how well it will work in a modern engine and also if it is safe to do so.
I'm also questioning the fact that there are NO reputable names behind this, non of the organisations that promote ideas such as this have backed it, or even mentioned it.

K&N air fliteres DO NOT reduce fuel consumption or extend the MPG, I know this for a fact (I used to hang out in the modded car scene) in an ECU controlled injected car, the increased flow of air allows more fuel to be added to keep the AIR / FUEL RATIO EXACTLY THE SAME as it has been programmed, otherwise you would be running a lean fuel mix and overheat / damage the engine and CAT. The result of more air and fuel in the same volume chamber = more bang - more power. It's like saying that a Turbo or super charger on an engine is more fuel efficient than a non breathed on engine.

My point is this: Thereare a LOT of fake products, both mechanical and fuel / oil additives that proclaim to make these "incredable" "increased milage" et al claims yet few if any produce any real world noticable affect on the burn characteristics of the fuel or reduce the internal friction of the mechanical parts of the engine. Some of these additives that DO actually reduce friction (such as slick 50) use PTFE otherwise known as Teflon (tm), to which the Dupont Corp. has in the past (and still maintains this view) that PTFE has "No place inside an engine". PTFE is also a particulate additive, and what does the filter in your oil system do?...........yep, it filteres out particulates leaving you with a cloged filter and the bypass will open letting unfiltered oil flow around the engine. PTFE can also clog up the small oil ways leading to oil starvation, yet these products have been on sale for years and continue to sell.

Some of the products that claim to increase fuel milage use other varoius methods, turbulant air in the inlet, air bleed valves, sonic vibration (which actually DOES work if ultra sound is used in the combustion chamber - requires a specially built engine), various types of fuel "catalyst" devices, fuel heaters, fuel coolers, electro-magnets, rare earth perminant magnets, etc. etc

In other words, there is a lot of crap out there in the public domain. Nearly all of these devices have exactly the same type of "It really works" claims and anecdotal evidence as presented in the original author's post. What makes this idea any better just because he (as far as we know) is not selling this as a product? where is the proof, where is the evidence that this will NOT damage an engine / fuel system?
It's NOT the ADDITIVE I'm dissmissing, it's the evidence and the author.

Silicon Skum wrote:

[TN] Nathan wrote:

True, but comparing a cylinder decarbonization chemical to what we are talking about here is an unfounded comparison.

No offense, but I don't even know why it was brought up.

I mentioned this additve as a viable comparison, Redex has been around for about 50years or more (about the length of time the original autor claims to have been using Acetone), it too has had claims exactly like that of the Acetone idea. It does work, and does live up to the calims in older cloged up engines, because it is nothing more that a solvent to restore an egine to original spec. but this is no use to a modern engine design, it could even damage it, and this is only kerosene, a petro-chemical.

I thought this was a good comparison, so I used it.

Silicon Skum wrote:

Ahhh, now you did'nt read the bit about compression ratios used in alcohol fuelers. <SNIP>.

[TN] Nathan wrote:

This is true, I am not a fan of winter fuel and neither is anyone I know of.

I can understand that, I would not be keen to run an alcohol blended fuel in my car either, even though the manufacturer says it is an acceptable fuel. Petrol engines were designed to run one thing - PETROL. I do think that it is a fair attempt at intrducing an alternative fuel into the market, it does have it's weak points, but overall it is an acceptable addition. It's not the fault of the fuel, just that the average engine is not the best dsign to use it efficiently. Its a trade off.
In the summer I mix about 10% pure Ethanol to the petrol in my ride on lawnmower, being air cooled the extra heat allows the alcohol to burn better and the engine remains cooler than with petrol alone, also the oil seems to stay cleaner, all good for engine life. Don't know what affect it has on the MPG though.

Silicon Skum wrote:

This really is not about gasohol being a bad fuel, <snip>.

[TN] Nathan wrote:

Yes, you will, the computer will be able to avance the timing more. Although the performance difference is not worth the increased price.

Actually, thats not strictly true, not all ECU systems will adjust the spark timing. there are many fuel ignition maps that have been calibrated for only the rated fuel octane, these generally do not have the knock sensors or ability to advance / retard timing and are slightly retarded for the rated fuel octane. Spark timing being controlled from a map governed by the RPM of th engine.Typically these ECU's (such as the MEMS ECU) is a highly complicated software map for cost reduction on non performance cars (such as fleet cars, rep-mobiles, family cars etc.). The manufacture did not forsee the engine being run on a higher grade fuel for performance.

At least that is how it is for european cars, things may be different with USA built cars.

[TN] Nathan wrote:

But if someone can add a dollars worth of Acetone to their tank and get the same results as higher octance fuel, what is the problem then.

I see your point, but would it not be cheaper / easier / safer to just buy a bottle of ocatne booster and add that each fill up? the prices are comparable. This method would not work with the above mentioned scenario, but would the Acetone still work if the spark timing curve was not advanced? This could be just a case of the acetone adding higer octane ratings to the fuel.

This could be an interesting test of the ability of the acetone to see if it is just an octane booster, a fuel system / combustion chamber cleaner or if it is doing something else to the fuel. Using a non ECU controled engine, an older carb'ed engine with mechanical distributer spark timing should be able to proove if it DOES work as claimed or NOT.

If it is just a cleaner results will even off and remain the same over 4 or 5 tank fulls of "normal" fuel. A new car or one that has recently had the fuel system, injectors / carb and combustion chamber / valves cleaned should show little or no improvement.

If it is an octane booster it should show little or no (probably worse) improvement in MPG, using the same spark advance curve for both normal and treated fuel. No advanced spark - should be no improvment.

if both the above tests fail, then something else is going on with the fuel / acetone interaction, maybe it does work as claimed.

Silicon Skum wrote:

[TN] Nathan wrote:

Sitting a bit of rubber seal in a bottle of acetone or petrol / acetone mix is not a fair real world test, there are many more factors involved, heat, vibration, stress, corrosion, chemical break down, by-products, oxidisation, etc. How well do these "tests" compare the environment inside a working engine?
How were the tested items determined to be in acceptable condition, where they even tested at all or was this just a visual inspection? Rubber, plastics and other materials can look just fine but are sevearly weakend when tested.

Are there any chemical reactions and by products from the interactions of acteone and petrolium and it's various additives? could these by-products be harmfull to materials used in the fuel system, engine and exhaust system?

I think you will agree that "I stuck it in a bottle of acetone for a year" is not an acurate analytical approach to testing.

Silicon Skum wrote:

This is not alcohol (ethanol or methanol)

[TN] Nathan wrote:

Actually "Octane" or n-octane is the base chemical of gasoline, petrol without the additives to allow it to be used in an engine, from memmory it's:
IUPAC Name octane
CAS Number 111-65-9
Chemical Formula C8H18

So as it is a constituant of Gasoline allready, it would make little difference to an engine. Acteone is not a constituant part of petrol, so a comparrison is unfounded.

I'm not sure about the vaporisation requirements of Acetone in an internal combustion engine, though I would doubt that in such a small quantity in the mixed fuel, it would be able to noticably lower temperatures of the combustion chamber walls or combustion process. If I remember correctly Acetone has a flash point of -16 degC and a boiling point of 58 degC, So I would assume it would be readly vaporised at such low concentration in an engine at running temperature.

The temperature of the combustion chamber should not have an effect on the spark timing, unless the fuel allready had a far to low octane rating (which the Acetone would have increased slightly). In this case a fuel with a higher octane rating would give a better result.

[quote="Silicon Skum"]Also an important question would be, what damage to the CAT will occour <snip>quote]

[TN] Nathan wrote:

What about the unburnt octane [ booster ] like toluene and xylene ruining the cat? Not all companies use alcohol as the octane incresing agent so should we avoid all gas companies that use some other chemicals to increase the octane rating?

Poisoning the cat with a concentration of 0.002% is pretty ridiculous don't you think?

Unleaded fuel is 50% aromatic additives -- they are the replacements for lead. They are dimethylbenzene, mesitylene, TOLUENE, XYLYENE and benzene. The CAT was designed with these chemicals in mind, but it does not function until it reaches a temperature in excess of 400 degC. Up to that point these chemicals flow freely through the cat (which is also very bad for the environment as these are VOCs - volitle organic compounds and are ALL carcinogenic). The CAT is slowly being poisoned by these chemicals.

I don't have any information on hand about the reactions between the catalyst and acetone, as far as I'm aware, no studies have been done as acetone was never an intended additive to petrol.

As for the point about such a low concentration poisoning the cat, well, if it DOES react with the catalyst, then YES it will poison the cat over a short period of time, maybe only 2 or 3 tankfulls. Try running leaded petrol in a catalytic equipt car and see have many miles you get before the CAT dies. a single tank is more than enough to poison the CAT.

If you do a lot of start -stop driving the cat will be barley warmed up before the engine is stoped, in all this time the cat is not working and these chemicals are entering the CAT matrix, what affect will acetone have on the CAT in the presence of these chemicals?

There are too many unanswered questions to simply state "we have nothing to loose".

Silicon Skum wrote:

Perhaps it is a little extreme, but do you have proof that this is not the case?

[TN] Nathan wrote:

Again, this is your opinion only and has no real basis. This has been a racing trick for years and no engines have packed it in if they used it.

Maybe so, but how many of the race engines have been running on this stuff while being used in urban driving while dropping the kids off at school in rush hour traffic? I would also doubt that the fuel tanks were left for weeks / moths at a time with fuel going stale in the tanks as is common with limited milage urban driving. We need to compare like for like.

Silicon Skum wrote:

I'm not dismissing this out of hand, there is some evidence pointing towards it working, but it's all anecdotal

[TN] Nathan wrote:

I understand, but there is more proof on their end than anything you have brought forward.

[TN] Nathan wrote:

As stated earlier, chemtool B-12 is a 15 oz bottle at a acetone concentration of 20-25% so that would work out to be around 4 fl oz.

People swear by it and have enjoyed the product and the performance and economy differences it has brought to their vehicle.

This is proof that it does help and if it didn't the product would have been gone long ago.

People will buy products for cars that are proven NOT to work, just look at all the "infomercials" for products like Slick50, Duralube, STP oil treatment et al. some of these products like the air bleed devices have actually shown LOWER MPG but they are still being sold. People are sheep and follow each other.

Silicon Skum wrote:

In the end it's up to the individual to decide if it's worth the risk to their engine / fuel system

[TN] Nathan wrote:

Excep the cost of replacment parts for your engine.

Im NOT actually providing any warnings, I'm just questioning the possible effects from Acetone in the fuel system. The lack of any valid data to back up the claims is more than a little discoraging. I'm fairly sure that in a non computer controled fuel system and no CAT to worry about, there would be little harm in trying it, I just am not so keen to try it where the ECU and O2 sensor will try to second guess me and end up cooking the CAT or something equally as costly to fix.

I may try this in my old Mini, it's a carb and dissy setup, so nothing to worry about there, fuel tank and most of the fuel line is metal, may be questionable with the mechanical fuel pump seals. There is a CAT, but I'm willing to sacrifice it as I'm planning on removing it anyway (it may already be dead, last emissions test was very high for a CAT). I'll get the engine tuned up and sorted with new plugs, plug leads, dissy cap and rotor, new points and fill up with 15Litres (max fuel capacity) of standard unleaded 95RON petrol, run a test to work out current MPG and run a couple of tanks of treated fuel and work out the difference.

OK, I'm game for this if you are.

what would be the correct amount of Acetone to use in 15L of fuel?

§
_________________
my sig disappeared from the image host (?)
But at least I have a Josh Award!

sandness
SirTweaksabit

Joined: 18 Oct 2004
Posts: 274
Location: is everything

Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 2:44 pm Post subject:

Very well said, SS. Bravo.

2old2care
Lord of the Tweak

Joined: 09 Jul 2004
Posts: 2817
Location: Pssst....Over Here

Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:50 pm Post subject:

Disclaimer....I only have opinions...they are not backed up by any hard science. But...if you follow the links around a bit on this...it's biggest fan is PES which is a dedicated group of people I'm sure. Here they are even. http://pureenergysystems.com/about/personnel/SusanMCarter/index.html http://pureenergysystems.com/about/personnel/KennethMRauen/index.html http://pureenergysystems.com/about/personnel/Mary-SueHaliburton/index.html http://pureenergysystems.com/about/personnel/SterlingDAllan/index.html The original article referenced was written by this man: Louis LaPointe (has asked to not be contacted) from the webpage And...for some odd reason this company (and the people behind it) seems to be big at defending the use. http://www.ethosnw.com/ http://www.ethosfr.com/ I'm convinced.... Okay, sarcasm over....we've used esters (acetone, toulene, etc) in JP4 for years for cleaning nozzles, injectors and whole fuel system stuff, works great....BUT the FAA will not allow it in flight, I don't know the reason. Acetone IS a hydrocarbon. I'll bet it will not hurt a thing. Does it raise the temperature of the catalytic convertor? _________________ . Liquid-Cooled Q9450 and an EeePC .

[TN] Nathan
ALMIGHTY PWNER!

Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 7406

Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:51 pm Post subject:

Silicon Skum wrote:

This is fine, but that doesn't mean it won't work. I know I don't need a group's stamp of approval to use something. Also note that the oil cartel is a HUGE RICH entity that has been known to squash or buy out anyone trying to reengineer something for more fuel efficiency.

A gentleman in the states designed a new carburator for his Dodge Omni that got over 70MPG on regular pump gas and actually increased horsepower 50%. It was a couple years ago and I watched the video of him running the engine and the testing he did.

Guess what happened, the oil cartel bought him out for almost US$3 million dollars and took over his patent and threw the design and the patent on their back shelf.

Silicon Skum wrote:

K&N air fliteres DO NOT reduce fuel consumption or extend the MPG, I know this for a fact (I used to hang out in the modded car scene) in an ECU controlled injected car, the increased flow of air allows more fuel to be added to keep the AIR / FUEL RATIO EXACTLY THE SAME as it has been programmed, otherwise you would be running a lean fuel mix and overheat / damage the engine and CAT. The result of more air and fuel in the same volume chamber = more bang - more power. It's like saying that a Turbo or super charger on an engine is more fuel efficient than a non breathed on engine.

Sorry to say, but they do.

I myself own a K&N cold air intake on my truck and over the same 100 miles drive with and without it, I gained 2MPG. That is my proof and I have seen the results myself.

The engine is a glorified air pump, the better you allow it to breathe, the more efficient it will be. I even checked this with an onboard scanner and with the intake and K&N filter installed, I averaged 5% less throttle angle over the same distance through the data log.

The less throttle you use to do the same work, the better the consumption.

Silicon Skum wrote:

My point is this: Thereare a LOT of fake products, both mechanical and fuel / oil additives that proclaim to make these "incredable" "increased milage" et al claims yet few if any produce any real world noticable affect on the burn characteristics of the fuel or reduce the internal friction of the mechanical parts of the engine. Some of these additives that DO actually reduce friction (such as slick 50) use PTFE otherwise known as Teflon (tm), to which the Dupont Corp. has in the past (and still maintains this view) that PTFE has "No place inside an engine". PTFE is also a particulate additive, and what does the filter in your oil system do?...........yep, it filteres out particulates leaving you with a cloged filter and the bypass will open letting unfiltered oil flow around the engine. PTFE can also clog up the small oil ways leading to oil starvation, yet these products have been on sale for years and continue to sell.

Yes, I understand those product scams, but yet again you have COMPLETELY missed the point.

NO ONE IS SELLING YOU ANYTHING NOR IS THIS A "PRODUCT" THAT SOMEONE IS TRYING TO SELL YOU

This isn't an infomercial, it is someone trying to help you out by possibly saving you a little money and efficiency. He has NOTHING to gain from you doing this so you need to stop with the SCAM arguement.

Silicon Skum wrote:

Some of the products that claim to increase fuel milage use other varoius methods, turbulant air in the inlet, air bleed valves, sonic vibration (which actually DOES work if ultra sound is used in the combustion chamber - requires a specially built engine), various types of fuel "catalyst" devices, fuel heaters, fuel coolers, electro-magnets, rare earth perminant magnets, etc. etc

In other words, there is a lot of crap out there in the public domain. Nearly all of these devices have exactly the same type of "It really works" claims and anecdotal evidence as presented in the original author's post. What makes this idea any better just because he (as far as we know) is not selling this as a product? where is the proof, where is the evidence that this will NOT damage an engine / fuel system?
It's NOT the ADDITIVE I'm dissmissing, it's the evidence and the author.

Again, this isn't an infomercial, it is someone trying to help you out by possibly saving you a little money and efficiency. He has NOTHING to gain from you doing this so you need to stop with the SCAM arguement.

Silicon Skum wrote:

But this arguement has no merit in this particular topic. It is related to a whole different practise and the only thing that it has in common is the time frame it has been used.

Silicon Skum wrote:

Hehe, yea, more like gallons per sqaure feet kinda thing.

Silicon Skum wrote:

Anything with electronic spark control has konck sensors to adjust timing since I believe 1985 so that will more than like cover most vehicles on the road today.

Spark timing is not only controlled by the crank sensor monitoring the engine rpms, but is mostly controlled by the two knock sensors on OBDI and OBDII equipped engine.

With OBDI, if there is an actual distributor, you first have to set the base timing and the computer will controll it from there, but in late 1995 when OBDII came into the industry as the recognized specification, the timing was completely computer controlled.

A computer controlled engine is always adjusting its spark timing to the maximum state without detonation. Even when using higher octane fuel, the engine will be able to advance the spark timing even more.

Silicon Skum wrote:

No, octane booster is not a cheap thing to buy. Adding a dollars worth of acetone or a $7 bottle of octane booster is not the same thing.

Silicon Skum wrote:

This could be an interesting test of the ability of the acetone to see if it is just an octane booster, a fuel system / combustion chamber cleaner or if it is doing something else to the fuel. Using a non ECU controled engine, an older carb'ed engine with mechanical distributer spark timing should be able to proove if it DOES work as claimed or NOT.

If it is just a cleaner results will even off and remain the same over 4 or 5 tank fulls of "normal" fuel. A new car or one that has recently had the fuel system, injectors / carb and combustion chamber / valves cleaned should show little or no improvement.

Actually, you are more than likely to see an improvement with a computer controlled engine seeing it will ba able to do changes on the fly rather than using the set timing. Only way to see if a older vehicle gets any improvement is seeing if you can advance the spark timing manually and seeing if there is any pinging.

Silicon Skum wrote:

If it is an octane booster it should show little or no (probably worse) improvement in MPG, using the same spark advance curve for both normal and treated fuel. No advanced spark - should be no improvment.

if both the above tests fail, then something else is going on with the fuel / acetone interaction, maybe it does work as claimed.

I have no idea where you are getting the higher fuel consumption from using less volatile fuel. This is completely against how computer controlled engine work.

Their timing is not set in stone and if you can get more bang for less throttle angle, that will definitely show up in the fuel consumption.

I have yet to hear of anyone getting worse economy from using a higher octane fuel. It might cost more, but that does not mean the engine will CONSUME more.

Silicon Skum wrote:

Sigh, so you think immersing components in pure acetone is not as harsh as true engine conditions? Comon now.......

Silicon Skum wrote:

Are there any chemical reactions and by products from the interactions of acteone and petrolium and it's various additives? could these by-products be harmfull to materials used in the fuel system, engine and exhaust system?

I think you will agree that "I stuck it in a bottle of acetone for a year" is not an acurate analytical approach to testing.

Seems that without some separate company giving it a complete thumbs, you will never condone something as being ok to try. Next time you overclock your computer, think of what you are saying.

Do you see a separate electronics company stating that it works? No.......

Silicon Skum wrote:

And stating that all companys use "octane" as their octane enhancer is also unfounded. Different companys use different chemicals to raise the octane rating. Saying that they all use the same chemical is a completely blind assumption.

Octane is not only a chemical, it is an anti-knock/detonation rating.

Silicon Skum wrote:

I'm not sure about the vaporisation requirements of Acetone in an internal combustion engine, though I would doubt that in such a small quantity in the mixed fuel, it would be able to noticably lower temperatures of the combustion chamber walls or combustion process. If I remember correctly Acetone has a flash point of -16 degC and a boiling point of 58 degC, So I would assume it would be readly vaporised at such low concentration in an engine at running temperature.

The temperature of the combustion chamber should not have an effect on the spark timing, unless the fuel allready had a far to low octane rating (which the Acetone would have increased slightly). In this case a fuel with a higher octane rating would give a better result.

You don't need to mix huge amounts of a volatile liquid as a solute to enhance the properties of a solvent.

Silicon Skum wrote:

If it can handle toluene and xylene, you can't say it won't handle something that has pretty well the same exact chemical properties.

It is like saying your stomach can breakdown milk chocolate, but don't dare eat some dark chocolate, we don't have tests confirming how the stomach processes it in comparison.

Silicon Skum wrote:

As for the point about such a low concentration poisoning the cat, well, if it DOES react with the catalyst, then YES it will poison the cat over a short period of time, maybe only 2 or 3 tankfulls. Try running leaded petrol in a catalytic equipt car and see have many miles you get before the CAT dies. a single tank is more than enough to poison the CAT.

If you do a lot of start -stop driving the cat will be barley warmed up before the engine is stoped, in all this time the cat is not working and these chemicals are entering the CAT matrix, what affect will acetone have on the CAT in the presence of these chemicals?

There are too many unanswered questions to simply state "we have nothing to loose".

Dicto simpliciter (spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization). This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case -- in other words, stereotyping. Example: "Women are on average not as strong as men and less able to carry a gun. Therefore women can't pull their weight in a military unit." The problem is that the sweeping statement may be true (on average, women are indeed weaker than men), but it is not necessarily true for every member of the group in question (there are some women who are much stronger than the average).

You assuming that acetone does the same thing as lead is an ill informed assumption.

Silicon Skum wrote:

What?! So you now saying that octane enhancers and fuel enhancers are only to be used on the highway and on the race track?

Again, this is you opinion and you have no proof to back this up.

Silicon Skum wrote:

I'm more than willing to do some research in to this, I'll see what I can dig up that is verified information, both for and against the use of acetone. Might be able to run up a small scale test with a 4stroke engine from a lawnmower or go-kart and fit it with automotive parts from a scrap yard, not ideal, but should provide some findings.

People will buy products for cars that are proven NOT to work, just look at all the "infomercials" for products like Slick50, Duralube, STP oil treatment et al. some of these products like the air bleed devices have actually shown LOWER MPG but they are still being sold. People are sheep and follow each other.

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of

; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments.

No one is selling you anything and the overzealous paranoia is getting quite substantial. You are treating this situation like you are being sold a product.

THIS IS NOT A PRODUCT, IT IS A GUIDE! NO ONE IS SELLING YOU ANYTHING!

Silicon Skum wrote:

Except the cost of replacment parts for your engine.

Again, completely unfounded. Saying that a 0.02% concentration is going to all of a sudden destroy your engine and components is an ignorant statement and is a unfounded fear mongering tactic. You know that gas is a solvent and so are all the additives and you don't see yourself replacing parts after "two tank fulls" like your opinion is stating here.

Silicon Skum wrote:

No offense, you could have fooled me. Stating that peoples cat's and O2 sensors will be shot in 2-3 tank fulls and that your rubber components will melt away is definitely provided unsubstantiated warning for no good reason other than you think it won't work or it will pack your engine in.

The concentration is not high enough to substantiate these broad sweeping generalizations on the "sky will fall if you try this" arguement.

Silicon Skum wrote:

I may try this in my old Mini, it's a carb and dissy setup, so nothing to worry about there, fuel tank and most of the fuel line is metal, may be questionable with the mechanical fuel pump seals. There is a CAT, but I'm willing to sacrifice it as I'm planning on removing it anyway (it may already be dead, last emissions test was very high for a CAT). I'll get the engine tuned up and sorted with new plugs, plug leads, dissy cap and rotor, new points and fill up with 15Litres (max fuel capacity) of standard unleaded 95RON petrol, run a test to work out current MPG and run a couple of tanks of treated fuel and work out the difference.

OK, I'm game for this if you are.

what would be the correct amount of Acetone to use in 15L of fuel?

§

2.5-3 fl oz per 10 gallons.

You can use this to help you convert things.

http://www.onlineconversion.com/volume.htm

Don take anything as I say as an attack against you. This is only an educated debate.
_________________
Owner & Administrator
www.Tweaknews.net
www.Pocketbookpinch.com

[TN] Nathan
ALMIGHTY PWNER!

Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 7406

Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:00 pm Post subject:

2old2care wrote:

Okay, sarcasm over....we've used esters (acetone, toulene, etc) in JP4 for years for cleaning nozzles, injectors and whole fuel system stuff, works great....BUT the FAA will not allow it in flight, I don't know the reason.
Acetone IS a hydrocarbon. I'll bet it will not hurt a thing. Does it raise the temperature of the catalytic convertor?

No, it won't.

A cat overheating is because raw fuel is being dumped into the exhaust system througha leaky injector, or the fuel mixture is too lean or the timing is over advanced.
_________________
Owner & Administrator
www.Tweaknews.net
www.Pocketbookpinch.com

fussnfeathers
Lord of the Tweak

Joined: 14 Dec 2004
Posts: 2763

Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2005 11:18 pm Post subject:

I'm gonna chime in here, quietly. Yes, acetone (pure acetone) can increase fuel mileage a bit, reduce a minor bit of pollution, BUT.........always a BUT. Like any solvent, you need to verify that it's suitable for your system. There are different types of acetone (and, in fact, if you read the backs of the commercially available "octane boosters", they contain acetone), and some WILL HARM YOUR ENGINE. This theory has been tested many times, but with pure acetone only. Don't think that you can dump a bottle of nail polish remover in your engine, and not have ill effects......the perfumes, additives (oils and such) may or may not react with your fuel injectors and seals, and in fact, burn quite hotter than gasoline when burnt. I'll agree that it does work, but not to the extent that Nate and the others are claiming........that's an outside margin. I tried this myself, years ago, when I was more into cars (read: before PC's existed), and while it gave me a slight boost in MPG, it was far less on the average than 5%, the actual total was only 2%, with greater boosts at highway mileage. We even tried this at the cab company I worked for in '89, and it didn't give enough of a cost benefit to warrant keeping it up........and we tested it for 6 months. If done properly, like anything else, it won't hurt you to try it.........but DO IT RIGHT. We're tweakers here, guys.......you wouldn't dream of dumping generic DDR in your computer, don't even THINK about putting generic acetone in your engine. For me, I've been using STP's octane booster for years, it costs me $1.50 per fill-up (here, anyway), and that's even overkill.........it treats up to 20 gallons, and my Cavalier is only a 12 gallon tank. Yes, it increases my mileage, (and it uses acetone to do it), and I don't have to guess about percentages, and what not........just be careful. You CAN harm your engine by dumping in the wrong stuff. _________________ Big enough to scare you

Silicon Skum
UberTweaker

Joined: 26 Jul 2004
Posts: 1156
Location: UK, Geordie land

Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 1:20 am Post subject:

Silicon Skum wrote:

I'm not dissmissing it on the grounds of past examples, .

[TN] Nathan wrote:

I'm quite aware of the suppressed technology held by various compnies, organisations and cartels, there is a LOT of working inventions and ideas that could benifit the world. But this is the state of affairs that we have to deal with. This is why the internet is such a valuable resorce of data concerning these ideas, however there are still a lot of usless data by people who have only a basic grasp of the concept they are dealing with and for the most part, less of a grasp on the basic principals of chemisty and physics. Read up on some of the "free energy" ideas floating around. Some will seem like complete giberish (and usually are) others will seem like a plausable idea, but fail due to the laws of conservation of energy and thermodynamic principles. A few and I mean a few, WILL have some wild concept but can (and somtimes do) produce actuall results.

While the free energy thing is another topic entirly, the basic types of people and ideas / concepts are the same for almost any type of energy and technology research. there are always people who sound like they really know what they are talking about, and most really belive in what they are saying. in the end only research and testing can provide the data to validate the claims.

Silicon Skum wrote:

K&N air fliteres DO NOT reduce fuel consumption.

[TN] Nathan wrote:

I dont doubt that in the slightest, but what performance drop was created by the inifecient manufacturer's air box and ducting? the higher temperature of the air being heated as it passes through the ducting and air filter box sitting on top of the hot engine would affect performance more than the standard paper air filter being restrictive to air flow. you have now replaced all that with a direct cold air feed and oiled high flow air filter, the cooler air alone woud improve performace (colder air being denser per volume of space) and improve the burn characteristics of the fuel / air mix.
In this case the incresed MPG was the result of the restrictive nature of the air box design and temperature issues being removed, the increased air flow of the filter medium also did it's part, less restrictions the better the result.

This wasn't a case of the K&N filter improving MPG, it was because of all the changes you made to the air intake system. A horribly inifective air box design will make even the highest fuel efficient engine bog down and burn more gas to go the same distance, as a test, try replaceing the original air box and ducting and fit a K&N filter element to the air box, you will see a big drop in performance compared to your current setup, even though the filter medium is exactly the same stuff - oiled cotton gause.

I've used K&N air filters myself, they are very good, but I would'nt class them as a fuel saver. It's just that some engines are more likely to see better results than others.

Silicon Skum wrote:

My point is this: Thereare a LOT of fake products, both mechanical and fuel / oil additives that proclaim to make these "incredable" "increased milage" et al claims, <SNIP> yet these products have been on sale for years and continue to sell.

[TN] Nathan wrote:

Some missunderstanding here Nate, I know that he's not selling this as a product. My point was slightly lost (my mind is a bit flakey dueto flu, made sense to me at the time). I was trying to say that just because something does NOT actualy live up to it's claims, it doesn't mean that this item will necessarly disapear from the public domain.
Humans are like cattle, they follow blindly thinking everybody else must know better. Mooooo

People are willing to belive, wether that is a good thing or bad, well thats a different topic.

Silicon Skum wrote:

It's NOT the ADDITIVE I'm dissmissing, it's the evidence and the author.

[TN] Nathan wrote:

Understood, see above comments.

Silicon Skum wrote:

I mentioned this additve as a viable comparison, Redex has been around for about 50years or more

[TN] Nathan wrote:

But this arguement has no merit in this particular topic. It is related to a whole different practise and the only thing that it has in common is the time frame it has been used.

While that is true, My point in using this as a comparison to the acetone additive is that BOTH have claimed the same things in the past, only with modern understanding in engine tech, Redex has proved to be nothing more than a good fuel system and engine cleaner with good upper head lubricating abilities. But there was a time when Redex was added as a fuel additive at filling stations in the UK as a matter of routine in the belife that it increased millage and protected engines, while this was true to a degree it was mainly due to poor quality fuel, poor state of tune in engines and the poor (by modern standards) fuel economy of engines 30 odd years ago. with modern engines the ability of this additve to still produce the increased millage has gone.

My point of the comparison was this: If both have been in use for 50 odd years and the more common (to the UK at least) additive has been proven to no longer be of benifit to MPG in modern fuel effiecient cars, could the same be true of Acetone in a modern engine?

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?

Silicon Skum wrote:

In the summer I mix about 10% pure Ethanol to the petrol in my ride on lawnmower, being air cooled the extra heat allows the alcohol to burn better and the engine remains cooler than with petrol alone, also the oil seems to stay cleaner, all good for engine life. Don't know what affect it has on the MPG though.

[TN] Nathan wrote:

Hehe, yea, more like gallons per sqaure feet kinda thing.

Silicon Skum wrote:

Actually, thats not strictly true, not all ECU systems will adjust the spark timing.

[TN] Nathan 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.

Silicon Skum wrote:

I see your point, but would it not be cheaper / easier / safer to just buy a bottle of ocatne booster

[TN] Nathan wrote:

No, octane booster is not a cheap thing to buy. Adding a dollars worth of acetone or a $7 bottle of octane booster is not the same thing.

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)

Silicon Skum wrote:

[TN] Nathan wrote:

Silicon Skum wrote:

[TN] Nathan wrote:

I have no idea where you are getting the higher fuel consumption from using less volatile fuel. This is completely against how computer controlled engine work. [ABOVE COMMENTS]

Their timing is not set in stone and if you can get more bang for less throttle angle, that will definitely show up in the fuel consumption.

I have yet to hear of anyone getting worse economy from using a higher octane fuel. It might cost more, but that does not mean the engine will CONSUME more.

In a non adjusted, NON ECU controled engine the fuel should show NO improvment when a higher octane fuel is used, the benifits of the higher octane will not be seen at all as the engine has not been adjusted to take advantage. The higher the octane, the higher the it's resistance to burning, so a slight increase in un-burnt fuel should mean a drop in performance and a slight reduction in MPG (LESS bang, less power = more throttle angle - LESS MPG).

I would expect to see a zero improvement in a carb car not setup to take advantage of a higher octane fuel, therfore if the the Acetone does NOT improve the MPG (or exhaust emissions for that matter) I would reason that it is not improving the fuel burn in the claimed way and is only an octane booster and nothing more.

This is about as realistic a test that any one of us could perform without expensive engines, dyno equiptment and exhaust gas analisers. This is as close to a fair and legitimate test that we could perform without having access to engineering facilities and laboratory access to determin if this is just a simple (but cheap) Octane boosting additive or if it is allowing a complete burn of fuel vapor in the combustion chamber by reducing surface tension and allowing larger droplets of fuel to dissperse and vaporise more easily as claimed by the original post author.

If you see what I'm getting at.

Silicon Skum wrote:

Sitting a bit of rubber seal in a bottle of acetone or petrol / acetone mix is not a fair real world test,

[TN] Nathan wrote:

Sigh, so you think immersing components in pure acetone is not as harsh as true engine conditions? Comon now.......

NO!, sorry, but I still think that is NOT a true test. Has there been any mention of HOW these items were tested to see if they were still up to the job they were intended for? Rubber and some plastics can become brittle and crack when stressed or flexed when in contact with some chemicals. There has been NO mention of how the author determined the parts to be completely uneffected by the acetone and how well thses parts would hold up in an engine environment.

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.

Silicon Skum wrote:

I think you will agree that "I stuck it in a bottle of acetone for a year" is not an acurate analytical approach to testing.

[TN] Nathan wrote:

Not at all, but I am concerned by the lack of ANY testing in a controled evironment. The fact that you seem to be all to willing to belive what some guy you have never met, never contacted and know nothing about, has posted on the internet, is to me just as bad. You of all people should know the kinds of things that get posted to internet fourms. I've seen people sugesting really dangerous ideas, and people are willing to belive that it's a safe and sound idea to try for themselves.
Hell, If I belived just 10% of the oddball ideas I've seen posted on the net I would be sitting next to my non functioning antigravity craft that is powered by free energy from a zero-point energy source converter (I feel I should point out that I'm actually, realy experimenting with the Bi-field Brown effect, high tension asymetrical capacitor powered craft / ion propulsion "lifters". So I have some knowlege in this area. and yes I have made a lifter fly). < thats NOT a wind up.

Silicon Skum wrote:

[TN] Nathan wrote:

yes, it is a anti-knock rating, It is measured relative to a mixture of iso-octane (2,2,4-trimethylpentane) which is the 100 point mark and n-heptane which is the zero mark. So an 87-octane petrol has the same knock resistance as a mixture of 87% isooctane and 13% n-heptane. It is true that a "gasoline" fuel can be created without using octane, most use it as the base for gasoline fuel, it's not just an additive, it is however one of a number of chemicals that make up gasoline. The chemicals used to make a batch of gasoline is dependant of the type of oil used that day, the quality of the oil and the method used to produce th base stock of the gasoline (fractionated, catalytic etc). There is too much information to list, and it's not that related to the topic anyhow.

Silicon Skum wrote:

I'm not sure about the vaporisation requirements of Acetone in an internal combustion engine.

[TN] Nathan wrote:

You don't need to mix huge amounts of a volatile liquid as a solute to enhance the properties of a solvent.

True, but I'm not implying that.

Silicon Skum wrote:

Unleaded fuel is 50% aromatic additives -- they are the replacements for lead. They are dimethylbenzene, mesitylene, TOLUENE, XYLYENE and benzene.

[TN] Nathan 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.

Silicon Skum wrote:

As for the point about such a low concentration poisoning the cat, well, if it DOES react with the catalyst, then YES it will poison the cat over a short period of time

[TN] Nathan wrote:

b][Dicto simpliciter [/b](spoken simply, i.e., sweeping generalization). This is the fallacy of making a sweeping statement and expecting it to be true of every specific case -- in other words, stereotyping. Example: "Women are on average not as strong as men and less able to carry a gun. Therefore women can't pull their weight in a military unit." The problem is that the sweeping statement may be true (on average, women are indeed weaker than men), but it is not necessarily true for every member of the group in question (there are some women who are much stronger than the average).

You assuming that acetone does the same thing as lead is an ill informed assumption.

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).

Silicon Skum wrote:

Maybe so, but how many of the race engines have been running on this stuff while being used in urban driving

[TN] Nathan wrote:

What?! So you now saying that octane enhancers and fuel enhancers are only to be used on the highway and on the race track?

Again, this is you opinion and you have no proof to back this up.

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?

Silicon Skum wrote:

I'm more than willing to do some research in to this, I'll see what I can dig up that is verified information.

[TN] Nathan wrote:

Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of ; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments.

No one is selling you anything and the overzealous paranoia is getting quite substantial. You are treating this situation like you are being sold a product.

THIS IS NOT A PRODUCT, IT IS A GUIDE! NO ONE IS SELLING YOU ANYTHING!

....................................................OoKay......

Silicon Skum wrote:

Except the cost of replacment parts for your engine.

[TN] Nathan 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?

Silicon Skum wrote:

[TN] Nathan wrote:

At the concentrations used, I would not expect ANY imediate reaction to the acetone, my point is simply what happens over time to these components in a working engine environment. If you have ANY conclusive proof, PLEASE post it here. Dropping a bit of rubber in acetone and it not disovlving is not a test of the *properties* of the rubber AFTER contact with the acetone. 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?

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.

Silicon Skum wrote:

[TN] Nathan wrote:

Don't worry Nate, I know a flame war when I see one, no problems here, just diferences in opinions.

§
_________________
my sig disappeared from the image host (?)
But at least I have a Josh Award!

[TN] Nathan
ALMIGHTY PWNER!

Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 7406

Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 3:29 am Post subject:

Silicon Skum wrote:

But let's give it the benefit of the doubt and open our mind instead of slamming the door shut right away.

Silicon Skum wrote:

While the free energy thing is another topic entirly, the basic types of people and ideas / concepts are the same for almost any type of energy and technology research. there are always people who sound like they really know what they are talking about, and most really belive in what they are saying. in the end only research and testing can provide the data to validate the claims.

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.

Silicon Skum 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. Very Happy

Silicon Skum wrote:

People are willing to belive, wether that is a good thing or bad, well thats a different topic.

True, but that arguement cannot be used here. No one is trying to scam someone, they are just asking you to try.

Silicon Skum wrote:

No......... Not an appropriate comparison.

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?

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:

The MOST complicated ECU system EVER BUILT. Mad

Yea, and only used in that model, never heard of anything like that on this side of the pond. Everything uses knock sensors here.

Silicon Skum 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.

Silicon Skum wrote:

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), then the fuel is being altered as claimed by the orignal post author, if no MPG change is found then it may just be an octane booster as opposed to the claimed ability to allow a complete burn of the fuel regardless of octane rating.

In a non adjusted, NON ECU controled engine the fuel should show NO improvment when a higher octane fuel is used, the benifits of the higher octane will not be seen at all as the engine has not been adjusted to take advantage. The higher the octane, the higher the it's resistance to burning, so a slight increase in un-burnt fuel should mean a drop in performance and a slight reduction in MPG (LESS bang, less power = more throttle angle - LESS MPG).

I would expect to see a zero improvement in a carb car not setup to take advantage of a higher octane fuel, therfore if the the Acetone does NOT improve the MPG (or exhaust emissions for that matter) I would reason that it is not improving the fuel burn in the claimed way and is only an octane booster and nothing more.

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.

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. This is as close to a fair and legitimate test that we could perform without having access to engineering facilities and laboratory access to determin if this is just a simple (but cheap) Octane boosting additive or if it is allowing a complete burn of fuel vapor in the combustion chamber by reducing surface tension and allowing larger droplets of fuel to dissperse and vaporise more easily as claimed by the original post author.

If you see what I'm getting at.

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..

Silicon Skum 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.

Silicon Skum 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.

Silicon Skum 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?

Silicon Skum wrote:

True, but I'm not implying that.

Yes, but you are saying it won't make any difference to the fuel's volatility. Sure you are implying that.

Silicon Skum 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.

Silicon Skum 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.

Silicon Skum wrote:

Did I say that? Nope.... Was I talking about alcohol based racing , nope.

No a valid arguement.

[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.

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?

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.

Silicon Skum wrote:

I'm sorry, oil destroys rubber? Confused

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.

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.

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.......

Silicon Skum wrote:

Don't worry Nate, I know a flame war when I see one, no problems here, just diferences in opinions.

Cool!

_________________
Owner & Administrator
www.Tweaknews.net
www.Pocketbookpinch.com

ToggleHead
TWEAKGURU

Joined: 03 Mar 2004
Posts: 4360
Location: Jersey

Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 7:50 am Post subject:

[TN] Nathan wrote:

IF SO, I MIGHT AS WELL TAKE DOWN THE OVERCLOCKING SECTION TONIGHT SEEING THEY CAN DESTROY THEIR $4000 COMPUTER.......

I'll kill you........

_________________

[TN] Nathan
ALMIGHTY PWNER!

Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 7406

Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 9:40 am Post subject:

ToggleHead wrote:

[TN] Nathan wrote:

IF SO, I MIGHT AS WELL TAKE DOWN THE OVERCLOCKING SECTION TONIGHT SEEING THEY CAN DESTROY THEIR $4000 COMPUTER.......

I'll kill you........

But its true, we have no long term proof that we aren't doing damage to our systems by doing this. We probably are.

BUT, we will never see a failure in the product's lifetime.

I'll leave it up for now.

It is up to sandness ans SS, they back off, I will keep the section up.

I kid....I kid.......

_________________
Owner & Administrator
www.Tweaknews.net
www.Pocketbookpinch.com

ToggleHead
TWEAKGURU

Joined: 03 Mar 2004
Posts: 4360
Location: Jersey

Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 12:50 pm Post subject:

HA HA HA...you are dead right... just the fear took over....=P _________________

Josh
TWEAKGURU

Joined: 22 Feb 2004
Posts: 4192
Location: United States of Kindom

Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 5:42 pm Post subject:

[TN] Nathan wrote:

ToggleHead wrote:

[TN] Nathan wrote:

IF SO, I MIGHT AS WELL TAKE DOWN THE OVERCLOCKING SECTION TONIGHT SEEING THEY CAN DESTROY THEIR $4000 COMPUTER.......

I'll kill you........

lol nate, you have a point, if you can get more out of something for your money without doin any damage...then why not give it a go. I see your point on that

But seriously...you take that section...i take you legs

_________________
»4 RS«»1Ж «»1 DENE«»1 FREAKIN LAME OH«»1 MONEY MONEY«
(-)

[TN] Nathan
ALMIGHTY PWNER!

Joined: 14 Feb 2002
Posts: 7406

Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 9:17 pm Post subject:

_________________ Owner & Administrator www.Tweaknews.net www.Pocketbookpinch.com

sandness
SirTweaksabit

Joined: 18 Oct 2004
Posts: 274
Location: is everything

Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2005 9:34 pm Post subject:

Nate and SS - aren't your fingers ready to fall off? You guys type too much. Or I'm just too lazy to keep up.

Display posts from previous:

	[TweakNews.net Forum] Forum Index -> Automotive Problems & Tweaking	All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 2 of 3

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