JC1994
Dedicated LVC Member
Mythbusters the same guys that try to catch fart gas and see what it's made of....:bowrofl: :bowrofl:
any comments on this so called fuel saver
- Thread starter turborich
- Start date
JC1994
Dedicated LVC Member
well my car is in perfect tune all the above are in use, but I am still going to try the acetone thing on my own and see if it works..Joeychgo said:
JC1994
Dedicated LVC Member
NO, not delusional, curious. I want to see for myselfDr. Paul said:
JC1994
Dedicated LVC Member
dude even with no lead footin' my car only gets 16-17 mpg in town and about 24-25 onthe highway. not bad but could be better.Doc said:
EconomySpeedNStyle
Active LVC Member
I decided to try the acetone about 6 months ago on my 94.
At 55 mph, the economy meter reads 34mpg instantaneous mileage on flat ground with no headwind without acetone. It stayed the same on the same stretch of road with 3 oz of acetone in a full tank.
Even more interesting is that my average mileage went from 22-23 mpg for the week down to 18!
Of course, my car needs a tune up. I think the plug wires are toast 'cuz it idles like crap, even after a plug and fuel filter change.
I think, from what I've been reading on the net, that people with LOW compression engines seem to benefit more from acetone. Our 4.6's are almost 10:1 compression, which might be the key. Who knows? Maybe the acetone actually DROPS the octane of the fuel. The reason I speculate this is because I get the same crappy mileage if I put 87 octane in the tank (which I've only done 1.5 times (1.5= one full tank once & a half tank the second time)).
I think we have an advantage over the most of the dweebs on the net because our cars have an onboard fuel mileage computer.
At 55 mph, the economy meter reads 34mpg instantaneous mileage on flat ground with no headwind without acetone. It stayed the same on the same stretch of road with 3 oz of acetone in a full tank.
Even more interesting is that my average mileage went from 22-23 mpg for the week down to 18!
Of course, my car needs a tune up. I think the plug wires are toast 'cuz it idles like crap, even after a plug and fuel filter change.
I think, from what I've been reading on the net, that people with LOW compression engines seem to benefit more from acetone. Our 4.6's are almost 10:1 compression, which might be the key. Who knows? Maybe the acetone actually DROPS the octane of the fuel. The reason I speculate this is because I get the same crappy mileage if I put 87 octane in the tank (which I've only done 1.5 times (1.5= one full tank once & a half tank the second time)).
I think we have an advantage over the most of the dweebs on the net because our cars have an onboard fuel mileage computer.
If you really think that your message center is anything close to a scientific instrument, you need your head checked.
Acetone doesn't do sh!t. Any claims otherwise are absurd, bordering on asinine.
Paul.
Acetone doesn't do sh!t. Any claims otherwise are absurd, bordering on asinine.
Paul.
EconomySpeedNStyle
Active LVC Member
I was just saying that it didn't show a difference.
[edited- for obvious reasons to the poster]
[edited- for obvious reasons to the poster]
Last edited by a moderator:
turborich
Dedicated LVC Member
Come on guy, some people just wanna see if it works! there is no reason to bash people like that! maybe it works, maybe it is BS, they will find out for themselfs. Besides this thread was about that fuel saver thing anyways.Dr. Paul said:
The internet propogates false, bad, and sometimes destructive information. The more people who 'try it' and swear they see an improvement, the more credibility the bad information gains. This, in turn, leads to more widespread BS.
My 'mission' (if you can have one on the internet), is to help stop this retarded crap from being spread to unsuspecting car guys who lack the experience or knowledge to see it when it presents itself.
Cheers,
Paul.
My 'mission' (if you can have one on the internet), is to help stop this retarded crap from being spread to unsuspecting car guys who lack the experience or knowledge to see it when it presents itself.
Cheers,
Paul.
EconomySpeedNStyle
Active LVC Member
As far as acetone is concerned, it only costs $3 for a bottle. Worst case scenario, you waste a whole $3 friggin dollars. Big deal.
Things like those Tornado Fuel Saver things are a scam that costs the consumer something like $80 for a piece of folded aluminum sheet. That's dangerous misinformation.
$3 for a bottle of acetone is not expensive, nor will 3 ounces diluted in 10 or more gallons cause even the minutest amount of damage to the car.
I also said I don't think it works well in high compression engines anyways.
I know the message center isn't a calibrated scientific instrument, but on my Mark it's been VERY accurate in giving me the average mileage after a full tank is used. I get a consistent 22 mpg in mixed traffic and a lot of lead-footedness. If I keep the speed down and drive less aggressively I can squeeze 25 mpg out of the tank.
The "miles left til empty" reading is completely out of whack, but I use my trip odometer and the message center to figure out if the mileage reading is correct.... and it always is.
If the acetone had show some sort of effect, driving the same stretch of road at the same speed in the same direction would probably show a different reading on the instantaneous mileage display. The fact is, it was exactly the same.
The Mythbusters episode was pure crap. I can't believe how stupid their test was.... They put a 70's carbed Cadillac engine on a stand, started it, put stuff in the fuel tank, and revved the engine?? WTF does that have to do with fuel economy??? And they also said that SUGAR in the tank made the engine "FEEL" more powerful? More stupidity.
Normally, I enjoy the show, but that was THE most ridiculous way to test a myth I've ever seen.
Especially the mothballs, since nobody makes the old napthalene mothballs any more. New mothballs contain a different, non flammable chemical that actually corrodes metal at an accelerated rate.
I'm tempted to buy a $500 4 cylinder beater, install a one gallon tank in the passenger compartment, and try different fuels and additives to see what kind of economy each one gives by driving the same stretch of road until the fuel runs out. Then make a full website recording the experiment and the results.
Things like those Tornado Fuel Saver things are a scam that costs the consumer something like $80 for a piece of folded aluminum sheet. That's dangerous misinformation.
$3 for a bottle of acetone is not expensive, nor will 3 ounces diluted in 10 or more gallons cause even the minutest amount of damage to the car.
I also said I don't think it works well in high compression engines anyways.
I know the message center isn't a calibrated scientific instrument, but on my Mark it's been VERY accurate in giving me the average mileage after a full tank is used. I get a consistent 22 mpg in mixed traffic and a lot of lead-footedness. If I keep the speed down and drive less aggressively I can squeeze 25 mpg out of the tank.
The "miles left til empty" reading is completely out of whack, but I use my trip odometer and the message center to figure out if the mileage reading is correct.... and it always is.
If the acetone had show some sort of effect, driving the same stretch of road at the same speed in the same direction would probably show a different reading on the instantaneous mileage display. The fact is, it was exactly the same.
The Mythbusters episode was pure crap. I can't believe how stupid their test was.... They put a 70's carbed Cadillac engine on a stand, started it, put stuff in the fuel tank, and revved the engine?? WTF does that have to do with fuel economy??? And they also said that SUGAR in the tank made the engine "FEEL" more powerful? More stupidity.
Normally, I enjoy the show, but that was THE most ridiculous way to test a myth I've ever seen.
Especially the mothballs, since nobody makes the old napthalene mothballs any more. New mothballs contain a different, non flammable chemical that actually corrodes metal at an accelerated rate.
I'm tempted to buy a $500 4 cylinder beater, install a one gallon tank in the passenger compartment, and try different fuels and additives to see what kind of economy each one gives by driving the same stretch of road until the fuel runs out. Then make a full website recording the experiment and the results.
67Continental
Dedicated LVC Member
Dr. Paul said:
why are you so rude? I don't think I've ever seen a single positive post from you. Why are you even on this board if you hate everyone here?
High Compression, Low Compression, it doesn't matter one iota. Please give me some scientific reason (and not the voodoo science based in fantasy that the guy who came up with this acetone idea) that the properties of acetone, and how it reacts in a combustion chamber have even the slightest correlation to compression ratio.
Since you have no way of determining precisely how much fuel is left in your tank, or control over any of another 100 or so variables, you can in no way validate the accuracy of your message center to actual fuel mileage.
Period.
Paul.
Since you have no way of determining precisely how much fuel is left in your tank, or control over any of another 100 or so variables, you can in no way validate the accuracy of your message center to actual fuel mileage.
Period.
Paul.
67Continental
Dedicated LVC Member
Dr. Paul said:
ok, I'll feed the troll - there is a very easy way to determine how much fuel you have used and therefore how accurate your fuel mileage computer is.
Fill you tank. The tank has a specific capacity. Drive 100 miles, for example. Then, fill your tank again. This will give you the exact amount of fuel you used to travel 100 miles. Do the math, get your fuel mileage.
I fully expect your response to this post to be rude, insulting, or condescending.
67Continental said:
Since the point at which the gas pump hits auto-shutoff at the gas station will vary from one fill-up to the next, this is not a scientifically accurate way of determining actual fuel consumption. I can still add well over a gallon of fuel to my tank after the initial shut-off, or more/less depending on the rate at which fuel is pouring into my tank - so what exactly is "full"? In order to have accurate measurements of mileage, you must have precise measurements of volume consumed/added and so on.
Tests of this nature must be conducted in a lab. There are dozens of other variables that must be controlled in order to provide a reasonably accurate measurement of fuel consumption vs. output.
Not only that, but anybody who has ever done any reading about fuel from a reliable source would know that adding some additive (any additive) at a ratio of less than two-thousandths of 1% would have such a negligible effect on the performance of the fuel as to most likely be un-measurable, even in a lab. The fact that anyone is even arguing this astounds me.
Paul.
*edit* what about fuel in the lines, the filler neck, the rails, the filter, drainback? What about fuel pressure, tune, air temperature, engine coolant temp, throttle position, air density, oil viscosity, changes in fuel and timing curves made by the ECU, driving conditions, rolling resistance, road surfaces, and on and on and on and on and on...
67Continental
Dedicated LVC Member
Dr. Paul said:
what astounds me is that a person such as yourself is tolerated on our web board. every single person here helps out everyone else except you. all you do is tear people down, mock people, make fun of them, or tell them they are idiots / worthless.
67Continental
Dedicated LVC Member
but i just discovered the "ignore" feature - so I at least will be free of your attitude from now on.
67Continental said:
I don't tear people down. If people believe a claim that is utterly false and absurd, I tell the that their belief is utterly false and absurd. If people choose to be offended because they were misled by so-called "experts" who have "evidence" which may, on the surface, appear to be legitimate by the untrained eye - that is their problem.
It is not entirely their fault. They are taking at face value the claims of some unknown provider of information without appropriate skepticism or research. I am simply debunking that claim. They may not initially have had the tools/understanding to make an appropriate evaluation of the claim.
What is unfortunate, (and this doesn't apply only to cars) is that people often choose to dig in, and defend their unenlightened position rather than read/understand what has been presented to them and make an informed evaluation of the facts at hand. The would rather cling tightly to a 'gut feeling' than make a decision based on empirical evidence, simply because it reinforces their preconceived notions about their expertise in the matter.
Feel free to put me on your ignore list. I understand your reasons and don't harbor resentment toward you for it.
Paul.
EconomySpeedNStyle
Active LVC Member
"Dr" Paul,
If some a**wipe was selling acetone for $30 a bottle and PROMISED an increase of 4-5 mpg , I would be the first one to scream BULLSH*T. Not because the acetone didn't work, but because they were selling 50 cents worth of acetone for $30 to an ignorant consumer.
This is not about "beliefs" and "snake oil". It's about trying something interesting that might lead to a benefit...or a loss. IT's called personal experience. There are no pure scientific studies to debunk or prove that acetone increases fuel economy.
Right now, a regular Joe can simply try it and see...
In my case, I put the 3 ounces of acetone in my tank and watched my economy go down the toilet.
Certainly, there are MANY variables, but we're not talking about a f**king scientific experiment, [Edited] . We're talking about personal EXPERIENCE with a particular substance being added to our fuel tank that cost about 50 f**king cents added to the cost of the fuel in the tank. When it costs $30 to put 10 gallons in the tank, 50 cents ain't sh*t. If it doesn't work, you've got some nail polish remover for your girlfriend/wife/mother/sister/gay uncle.
And also, MILES PER GALLON as a unit of measurement leaves a very large margin for error. It certainly can be affected by the temperature, ECU settings, barometric pressure, wind speed, etc, but after driving 200+ miles those things tend to even out... otherwise I wouldn't get the same damn fuel economy every stinking tankful for 6 months. If I add something to my fuel and I suddenly go from 22 mpg to 25 mpg (which DID NOT happen, I saw a reduction in fuel economy), there is only one variable that was added to the equation. Science does not always involve studies in which 100% of the variables are under the control of the scientists. Sometimes science is simply a matter of proving that something works, regardless of the number of outside variables.
I consider myself a skeptic to an extreme degree, but that doesn't mean I won't spend $3 if it meant there was a potential for a small boost in fuel economy.
It didn't, and I'm not mourning the loss of $3.
[Admin Note: Tone it down a notch please!]
If some a**wipe was selling acetone for $30 a bottle and PROMISED an increase of 4-5 mpg , I would be the first one to scream BULLSH*T. Not because the acetone didn't work, but because they were selling 50 cents worth of acetone for $30 to an ignorant consumer.
This is not about "beliefs" and "snake oil". It's about trying something interesting that might lead to a benefit...or a loss. IT's called personal experience. There are no pure scientific studies to debunk or prove that acetone increases fuel economy.
Right now, a regular Joe can simply try it and see...
In my case, I put the 3 ounces of acetone in my tank and watched my economy go down the toilet.
Certainly, there are MANY variables, but we're not talking about a f**king scientific experiment, [Edited] . We're talking about personal EXPERIENCE with a particular substance being added to our fuel tank that cost about 50 f**king cents added to the cost of the fuel in the tank. When it costs $30 to put 10 gallons in the tank, 50 cents ain't sh*t. If it doesn't work, you've got some nail polish remover for your girlfriend/wife/mother/sister/gay uncle.
And also, MILES PER GALLON as a unit of measurement leaves a very large margin for error. It certainly can be affected by the temperature, ECU settings, barometric pressure, wind speed, etc, but after driving 200+ miles those things tend to even out... otherwise I wouldn't get the same damn fuel economy every stinking tankful for 6 months. If I add something to my fuel and I suddenly go from 22 mpg to 25 mpg (which DID NOT happen, I saw a reduction in fuel economy), there is only one variable that was added to the equation. Science does not always involve studies in which 100% of the variables are under the control of the scientists. Sometimes science is simply a matter of proving that something works, regardless of the number of outside variables.
I consider myself a skeptic to an extreme degree, but that doesn't mean I won't spend $3 if it meant there was a potential for a small boost in fuel economy.
It didn't, and I'm not mourning the loss of $3.
[Admin Note: Tone it down a notch please!]
Last edited by a moderator:
Staffamerica74
Dedicated LVC Member
On myth busters tonight, they had this test, and it decreased mpg actually. On the car they used for the experiment it went from 17mpg at 35 mph to 16.4mpg, And at 55mph it went from 25mpg to 24mpg. The acetone makes the fuel burn faster so that would lower the octane rating....