Acetone In Fuel Said to Increase Mileage

[ramenboy...]

http://www.pureenergysystems.c...etone/"improves the fuel's ability to vaporize completely by reducing the surface tension that inhibits vaporization of some fuel droplets."what do you guys think of this?

[ramenboy...]

hmmm nevermind. i think i answered my own question...http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/acetone.asp

[engineertwin2]

Always ask yourself "if there exists a cheap and easy way to improve gas mileage, why aren't the automakers installing it or legislators requiring it?"It lends itself an easy answer. Remember that paint isn't the only thing the acetone would eat. As such, what increase in mpgs would have warranted the risk?Really, the only way to genuinely increase mpgs (without reducing weight) is to reduce power a little bit, or to include some sort of energy storage system (batteries, capacitors via a hybrid system). Without it, its mostly smoke and mirrors...

[silver_vibe]

I tried it myself 2 years ago and posted my results (Snopes didn't have that write up you found back then) http://forums.genvibe.com/zero...00089

[silver_vibe]

Quote, originally posted by engineertwin2 »...why aren't the automakers installing it or legislators requiring it...Seems like a "no brainer question", but isn't this also a "no brainer question": Why are automakers offsetting technological mpg gains in engine/vehicle design by making vehicles larger and more powerful (just to get the same mpg as the previous design) and why aren't legislators stopping the practice in favor of better mpg vehicles?

[ramenboy...]

thanx for the replies guys, silvr, couldn't get to that post for some reason. but yeah on the one hand, why aren't autmakers already doing this stuff, or legislators requiring it, but i don't get the whole idea behind pollution credits, or emission trading...so you can basically buy these credits to 'encourage more research in reducing pollution' while at the same time going about your own business of polluting anyways...

[Sublimewind]

Quote, originally posted by silver_vibe »Seems like a "no brainer question", but isn't this also a "no brainer question": Why are automakers offsetting technological mpg gains in engine/vehicle design by making vehicles larger and more powerful (just to get the same mpg as the previous design) and why aren't legislators stopping the practice in favor of better mpg vehicles? It's simple..... MONEY...... America in general is a gas driven society... we not only DEPEND on it, but, thrive on it... we would drink it if we could...Now ask yourself, would the big fuel manufactures ALLOW gas saving additives to be put in ? I doubt it... And i say allow in the highest regard.. consider what has happened in the past 3-4yrs. A few of the big car companies have brought out VIABLE hybrid cars and SUVs and what has happened the price of gas has doubled in that 3-4 years.... It's a vicious cycle and it will never stop until all of the oil is depleted...

[engineertwin2]

...because CAFE standards aren't increasing? The fact remains that larger vehicles sales, such as trucks and SUVs are still off, which means the market is pushing for smaller, likely more fuel friendly vehicles.A manufacturer has no reason to no employ every technology they feel is developed to the point of production if they feel there is a market for it.And just because they offset fuel efficiency gains with a larger vehicle doesn't imply they aren't looking for better efficiency - that would mean they could still build larger and larger, so long as they can offset it. So your logic doesn't quite track.

[joatmon]

Quote, originally posted by silver_vibe »Seems like a "no brainer question", but isn't this also a "no brainer question": Why are automakers offsetting technological mpg gains in engine/vehicle design by making vehicles larger and more powerful (just to get the same mpg as the previous design) and why aren't legislators stopping the practice in favor of better mpg vehicles? Because power and speed sells. Look at what people want, stuff like http://forums.genvibe.com/zerothread?id=29670 That is what is cool, not some wimpy golf cart. MPGs are boring, what is important is how fast I can go from one red light to the next, and that I can get there before the guy in the other car.

[silver_vibe]

Quote, originally posted by engineertwin2 »...because CAFE standards aren't increasing? The fact remains that larger vehicles sales, such as trucks and SUVs are still off, which means the market is pushing for smaller, likely more fuel friendly vehicles.A manufacturer has no reason to no employ every technology they feel is developed to the point of production if they feel there is a market for it.Doesn't that comment contradict the point of your question ""if there exists a cheap and easy way to improve gas mileage, why aren't the automakers installing it or legislators requiring it?" Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought your point in asking that question was that if it would work then laws would require it and manufactures would apply it...but now your saying laws don't require all technology to improve mpg and manufactures don't apply every technology...that was my point: just because it isn't required by law or manufactures aren't applying it, doesn't necessarily mean it won't work to improve mileage.Edit: I reread your post and it looks like you meant acetone would corrode engine parts quicker and therefore not worth the risk. Sorry about the misunderstanding. As for acetone eating engine parts, I find it hard to believe a few tablespoons of acetone per gallon of gas is more corrosive than gasoline, but that is personal opinion and I would not dispute any physical evidence to the contrary.

[prathman]

Quote, originally posted by silver_vibe »Why are automakers offsetting technological mpg gains in engine/vehicle design by making vehicles larger and more powerful (just to get the same mpg as the previous design) and why aren't legislators stopping the practice in favor of better mpg vehicles? 1) Because lots of people are willing to spend more money on larger, more powerful vehicles. That willingness tends to fade when gas prices go up suddenly, but car makers have pretty long design cycles so they frequently get caught with the wrong mix of vehicle designs for awhile.But I agree with engineertwin that if there were a feasible way for a car maker to substantially increase the mileage of their vehicles without any negative side effects then they'd immediately do so since it would be a major competitive advantage. Similarly with fuel additives. If Chevron could cite studies showing that their gas with some special additive gives 20% better mileage than competing brands, then they'd certainly start advertising that and improve their market share and profits.2) Legislative solutions tend to have unintended consequences. The initial CAFE standards set goals for passenger cars. But it was recognized that heavier vehicles, like pickup trucks and vans, needed for many commercial applications couldn't meet such strict standards so their goals were set at lower MPG levels. Naturally the car makers saw the opportunity to start marketing vans and truck-based designs (i.e. SUVs) as replacements for large sedans and station wagons. The fuel efficiency of nominal passenger cars went way up, but now many of the single-occupant "cars" in the commute traffic are actually classified as trucks and vans rather than passenger cars.

[engineertwin2]

oops...my bad...I wrote it wrong. I meant that it is to the manufacturers competitive advantage to apply any technology that is extremely cheap and reliable (not damaging or harmful to other components) in order to increase fuel economy.However, there may be products out there that do increase mpg and may be cheap, but they may not truly be at a marketable state. If that product ruined or degraded the product then they wouldn't have a reason to install it - as would be the case with acetone if it actually increased mpgs. It would not be a cheap fix as all rubber from fuel to fire would have to be replaced with parts that are not destroyed by acetone.

[silver_vibe]

Quote, originally posted by engineertwin2 »oops...my bad...I wrote it wrong. I meant that it is to the manufacturers competitive advantage to apply any technology that is extremely cheap and reliable (not damaging or harmful to other components) in order to increase fuel economy.However, there may be products out there that do increase mpg and may be cheap, but they may not truly be at a marketable state. If that product ruined or degraded the product then they wouldn't have a reason to install it - as would be the case with acetone if it actually increased mpgs. It would not be a cheap fix as all rubber from fuel to fire would have to be replaced with parts that are not destroyed by acetone.(see my edit above)This is all academic - the reason acetone isn't used is because it doesn't work I tried it two years ago and it had no effect.

[Sublimewind]

Quote, originally posted by silver_vibe »(see my edit above)This is all academic - the reason acetone isn't used is because it doesn't work I tried it two years ago and it had no effect.Have you tried Toluene, if herd of it being used...

[silver_vibe]

Quote, originally posted by Sublimewind »Have you tried Toluene, if herd of it being used... No I haven't. I didn't find much info on it either. I'll let someone else be the guinea pig this time.

[DavidPIL]

Quote, originally posted by Sublimewind »Have you tried Toluene, if herd of it being used... Quote, originally posted by silver_vibe »No I haven't. I didn't find much info on it either. I'll let someone else be the guinea pig this time.I also tried to Acetone but only for one long trip. It did nothing appreciable to mileage or performance. The Toluene you mention does seem to be an ingredient in several injector cleaners. I don't remember what they were off hand, but I remember shortly after doing the acetone, I payed closer attention to the make-up of the injector cleaners and did see that on several lables.I just have to believe that this stuff (acetone or even toluene) is way too costic to use a lot of. If someone tries it, 1. be careful what you store it in if you happen to tranfer it to a different container, 2. Don't use a lot. The acetone was supposed to be something like no more than 1-3 oz for a 12 gal tank. and 3. test it over several tank fulls but make sure you use up most of the tank before refilling. I have used the Redline Fuel Injector cleaner and notice a drop in mileage during that tankful but then it comes back up on the next. WHen using the Seafoam treatment, I notice an increase in performance but only for that particular tank full. The chemicals used in the different products do have a different affect on the engine.My assumption would be that toluene would only be a cheap way to clean your fuel injectors but not really add to any real-time mpg performance unless your injectors are very bad and this just happens to fix that.Dave

[Sublimewind]

I'm sorry, i was thinking about homade octane boosters..... Here is what Google found about that and much is mentioned about Toluene..http://www.google.com/search?s...oster

[chevelle_lover]

The only thing that acetone and toluene would be good for is if you had water in your tank. Toluene has less energy released than that of gasoline and although thinning out your gasoline the only thing that you might see is a drop in power. A half litre of diesel fuel in your tank is good for cleaning up the valves but I would only do it on my two carburated vehicles since fuel injectors might not like the diesel and I can rebuild the carb in about two hours if I have the parts. Personally I would just stick with the ones that come in a can (STP, Zmax or similar) because with my luck I would really screw things up.

[kunkstyle]

Quote, originally posted by chevelle_lover »but I would only do it on my two carburated vehicles since fuel injectors might not like the diesel and I can rebuild the carb in about two hours if I have the parts. Personally I would just stick with the ones that come in a can (STP, Zmax or similar) because with my luck I would really screw things up.Ha! Accidentally put in two litres of diesel in the vibe the other week on a road trip. It didn't seem to screw anything up

[Kamikaze]

Quote, originally posted by kunkstyle »Ha! Accidentally put in two litres of diesel in the vibe the other week on a road trip. It didn't seem to screw anything up I don't know if I'd admit to that, How the heck did you do that? or is the diesel nozel in the same place as the regular unleaded gas?then I guess I could see it happening... I thought they made the nozels for Diesel larger, and for the most part they won't even fit in the fuel hole on our cars...

[Daox]

Quote, originally posted by engineertwin2 »...technology that is extremely cheap and reliable (not damaging or harmful to other components) in order to increase fuel economy.This is the key from what I have seen. There are tons of different technologies out there for increasing fuel economy. The hardest part is implimenting these technologies and making them cost effecitve meaning you actually save money in a reasonable amount of time. Even the gas-electric hybrids currently aren't worth it purely from a cost savings point unless you keep the car for an incredible amount of mileage.I recently read an article about CAFE and how car manufacturers have said in the past how they could't do seat belts, airbags, and a few other things that are now standard on every car. This is nothing different. So, to me its not a question of 'can they do it?', its a question of 'how much will it cost?'

[engineertwin2]

To me, for those buying hybrids right now, it is a more conscious decision on their part to reduce their carbon footprint (which goes out the window if you argue the energy 'cost' to build the batteries). The friends I have who actually purchased Priuses were actually looking at Accords and Camry's and thus there is a cost savings, given they were willing to spend that much for a vehicle anyways.