REAL MPG GAINS...

Fine then. I will start this off by stating the obvious......

Keep the vehicle weight down, less weight = gas savings $$$$.

Don't drive a Hummer or other large gas-guzzling SUV if you don't need to (it's like trying to put a band-aid on a severed limb). Sensible fuel-efficient vehicles please.

Sure that 6 foot wide Confederate flag looks cool flying from the back of your car but it isn't helping your vehicles aerodynamics and you will really take a hit in your MPG .

Consider walking. A 10 minute walk down the road is better for you and the environment than saving 3 minutes of trip time by using your car.

Ute tailgate down better tailgate up (obviously with the bed empty). Its an aerodynamics thing.

Then there is the whole air conditioning vs opening the window. Open window at low speeds, close and use air con at fast speeds.

This is going to be long thread so I will stop there. Oh and please, no Pseudoscience devices.

There is nothing better than feeling the pain at the next fill up of your car. This is the greatest motivator to reduce consumption. As long as we try to suppress gas prices below their market value no one will want to do anything about it (i.e., the ludicrous attempts to tap oil reserves that are for national emergencies, just to drive prices down (why not repeal or suspend the taxes on the gas, then?)).

Yes, if you personally want to lower your costs, then there are a number of little things that will save you a dollar or two every week. You can keep tire pressure at the proper levels, get low rolling resistant tires, reduce vehicle weight (throw the significant other out or on a diet), use good engine oil, keep the car serviced, keep your windows up, drive like your grandmother, ride a bicycle or scooter, blah, blah, blah.

However, if you really want to cut down on your fuel bill, do what a friend of mine did; convert a car to electric propulsion. Now he doesn't need gasoline (or oil for that matter) at all and runs his car for about 10% - 20% the cost per mile that a gasoline powered car costs.

The downside was that the donor car and conversion cost him about $13,000, but he will get that back in about 3 to 5 years at present gas prices.

Personally, I don't think the money means that much to him. Think about how much gas $13,000 dollars buys and the economy isn't that great. He gets great pride out of doing this himself and making a statement about the possibilities. Myself, I think that it sounds like a fun technical challenge.

The problem with all of the above is that we are in a tiny minority. Most people are happy to drive the big gas guzzling cars and trucks they have and are content to do nothing more than grumble about the cost. Nothing we say will change their minds, so let them be and if their pain gets serious enough, they will change on their own accord. Meanwhile, have fun and ignore them.

Number 9 sounds far fetched. Do you have any data to substantiate that? I would love to see it if you do.

I know of one race where the teams were given identical cars, which the rules prohibited any changes to the cars. So some teams took to waxing the cars in an effort to get a competitive advantage, but I don't think it made a difference.

However, that just shows you how competitive they were. ;-)

it is all about airflow... a dirty car = more air resistance.

Try this:

1 - Wash and wax 1/2 your hood ; use high quality wax here ; applied by hand.
Car wash crap will not work - just not good enough. A good 3 step will work.

2 - Run you hand across each one.

Smaller cars will benefit more ; because of smaller engine size / higher MPG.

IE 10% of 40MPG = 4 MPG ; whereas 10% of 20 MPG =2 mpg.

Also the more air dynamic your car is the MORE the benefit. Maximum benefit is achieved when applied to front of the car...

D

So at what speed does the Laminar flow turn to turbulent and the dirt save you money?

Coarse surfaces in key places can reduce drag, but only above a certain speed for a certain shape. I have no clue what that is for air.

Could be room for improved drag coefficient.

Brad

& if there's ethanol in your fuel I'm not sure what the maximum savings will be. { probably not quite as good as wax }. I'll get back to everyone once the long term tests are done.

In the eighties it was well known that waxing the underside of you car was good for 4 mph gain on the straights at Indianapolis raceway. It seems that it would follow that similar miniscule gains could be attained in real world use with a cleaner body surface.

Bob

Darn it, all the good ones have been mentioned.

All I can say is to keep your tires inflated properly. Underinflated tires reduce mpg.

Indeed, all the good ones have been mentioned. One I didnt notice though, but relates to vehicle weight is to check the trunk (boot) of your automobile. I carry way too much extra weight in the form of tools, etc.

Mentally tape a raw egg to the bottom of your right foot. Mentally superglue your left foot to the floor. Now drive as though your life depended on keeping that egg intact.

A) Lean burn combustion.

B) There was a guy in India who was hand cutting groves in the combustion chamber in the heads to change the flame propagation.

C) Vaporization techniques that are realistic like direct injected hot fuel.

D) Genset-Supercapacitor-electric Hybrid.

E) SIP body panels e.g. Ceramic foam or Aluminum foam sandwiched between hight tensile thin skins. 200 ksi Beryllium copper over aluminum is 10 times lighter than steel for the same strength but cost is prohibitive.

F) Better instrumentation that gives driver feedback to: fuel quality; instantaneous MPG not estimated; external gains and losses ( wind, hills, weather).

G) the BIG better more efficient storage propulsion system.

H) Modular mass transit, capacity is demand driven.

I) Low friction engine designs.

J) Electronic valves for variable timing.

K) Home/farm derived fuel sources that have a reasonable cost.

Thats a start

Brad

I like to do informal experiments while making the 16 mile trip down the mountain.

Windows up or down, tire pressures, etc.

Since I'm coasting in neutral my power setting is constant.

Any results on those tests that you would like to share dayhead?

Good idea! First, I think we have to better understand the mentality of the general public, especially those under 30, and also the mentality of the American motor vehicle companies. GM posted an astronomical loss, and the U.S. vehicle mfg'ers still produce heavy (4,000 pounds and up) vehicles with 350 to 500 hp engines. Until we can help the motor vehicle mfg'ers understand that horse power and vehicle weight are on the opposite side of gasoline economy, and help them be competitive with the Asian (and some European) vehicle manufacturers, anything we say is like trying to bail out the ocean. That said, let's see what we can list to help John Q. Public with the weekly gasoline cost. Tire pressure. Long idling periods, including long warm ups during cold weather. What to do when 10,000 cars are stuck in traffic and not moving for long periods. Gasoline and oil additives. And so on. I'm as interested as the next person!

Good topic. A few more:

1. Check the air deflectors and other stuff beneath the car and make sure that they are well attached.

2. (Particularly in older cars) Add aerodynamic shields under the car so exposed parts are not giving excessive drag.

3. Allow speed to vary +/- for going uphill and downhill. Holding a constant speed uses more fuel.

4. Reduce speed. However, some vehicles have torque and horsepower curves which cause certain speeds to have greater efficiency than ones that are slightly slower.

5. Anything that decreases load on the electrical system will increase fuel efficiency, so avoiding excessive light wattage helps.

6. Keep tire pressure close to the high end of the recommended range, not just at the minimum vehicle recommended value. Very few people can tell if a tire is underinflated just by looking. Looking from the front or back is much more reliable than from the side. If any tire feels warmer than the others (while allowing for side/side sunlight effects or front/back load effects), then check its pressure.

7. Use synthetic multi-viscosity differential and (manual) transmission oil. These will have lower friction.

8. Use a slightly lower engine oil viscosity (but keep it within the range of viscosities recommended by the manufacturer); consider synthetic oil also for lower friction.

9. Carpool.

10. Accelerate slowly when leaving and ease up gently when approaching red lights.

11. Have the city traffic people time-synchronize the lights (this has been done for over 40 years in some cities).

12. Don't buy more car than you need, and don't buy size/acceleration/speed for its testosterone level.

13. Take testing agencies' reports about "weak acceleration" with "two aspirin". My '95 Geo Metro does just fine about 98% of the time and I can drive conservatively and defensively 100% of the time so the additional zip is not necessary for safety.

14. Use higher gears whenever you can as long as you are not "lugging".

15. Manual transmissions are always more fuel efficient. Learn to drive one and then buy them.

16. Rag on the salesmen and manufacturers' reps at auto shows about lousy fuel efficiency; in 5-10 years they might get the message.

17. Increase the gas tax.

18. Make the hidden (subsidized) costs in our auto-transportation infrastructure visible. Then we will see that cars often are more expensive for commuting that other systems.

--JMM

Not real scientific but its a start for me. Here is a link for what I wrote in the other thread. Realized it might fit here as well so...http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/16400#comment184727

Added this from another thread:

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/16400#comment184727

Hey Dan ;

RE: #1 - Trying plain acetone here ; on tank #2 now . I researched this alot online testing shows this can yield 10-20% on average. Reference this site:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Fuel_Efficiency

This is the most extensive and UNBIASED site I have found.
Includes details of results using acetone on many different cars.

Side note - I am testing on 1994 LHS , 3.5 L - 150,000 miles. Immediate improvement in accel, idle and starting. Testing MPG right now. First tank was about 5% more MPG - but I was enjoying the extra power... got to trim it back abit! LOL

RE: #2 - Correct ; you can fool the O2 sensors to read "rich" ; and the computer will lean the mixture.

RE: #3 - Heater - so far - from a lot of research this is sound. And there is away to get around the fuel return too. Working on this next on the test car. Improvements approximately 10-20% from research so far.

Side note - amount will vary depending on gas used - service station dependant -because the vapour points on the compounds in the gas varies. Some will come close to vapour point at 200F [appox coolant temp] others are higher at 350F...

There are three sources of heat on your car:

1 - Coolant - approximate 200F.
2 - Transmission - approximate 250-300F.
3 - Exhaust - 200-500F .- you need a regulator...

Side note 2 - Just ordered new spark plugs- called "Halos". Going to be testing on two cars - test car + Jeep. This site also includes real data on many different cars and fleets - increase MPG from 10% to 30%.

GO here - http://www.haloplug.com - click on "test and trial results".

I will be installing and testing as soon as they arrive ; will report findings.
Both test cars have real time MPG + average MPG built in and MPG is known for both.

Thanks

D

Has anyone heard of this? http://powerjetusa.com/index.htm

What do you guys think? Its sold on ebay for 40 to 70 dollars. Might be worth a try down the road...

Dan

OK, I should have looked more before posting the last message. I called both the numbers and they are disconnected. Searched the business and address. The address exists. Thats about all I can say about that...

Dan

Hey Dan;

I checked out this site . This device leans the fuel mixture under certain vacuum conditions which is based on RPM levels. Vacuum changes based on load conditions which in turns changes the amount / rate of air flow and impacts a/f ratios.

It appears to work using the idea that the engine sensors do not react fast enough to changes in engine load and this device acts like an "O2 sensors" ; but on the pre-burn side of the engine, instead of post burn - exhaust side- of the engine where O2 sensor[s] are located.

By metering a precise amount of air ; this device maintains a better mixture ratio thereby increasing MPG and reducing emissions based on real time vacuum conditions changes.

D

Awesome, thanks

Please explain how you can inject air @ atmospheric pressure, into a pressurised fuel line.

Looks like the same Ole magnet scam with a little multi level marketing thrown in.

Check out the diesel version, some bullshine about polarizing the molecules.

No independent 3rd party testing

No EPA certification

& on the waxing benefits, there are some small gains to be made on vehicles with very low coefficients of drag [Indy, f1.....]

The acetone stuff is pretty interesting, wonder if the juice is worth the squeeze?

Keep trying you may find somethings that make sense.

Hey Garth ;

The air injection is into the intake manifold forward of the throttle plates.

Based on the info / install notes on the site ; this device is calibrated to let in a small amount of air under very specific load conditions - 1000 to 3000 RPM.

Again ; based on the info at the site this device changes the air mix slightly when it appears there may not be optimum air flow due to certain load conditions.

I can not say for certain if this would work or not ; but it is worth checking out.

There are - depending on the engine - a mass airflow device, and air temp sensors in the intake manifold; but nothing to modulate the air within the confines of the manifold itself actively - except the EGR valve ; which is used for a different purpose - and of course the throttle plate[s] themselves.

An adjustable air valve; t-ed into the PCV valve and adjusted according to info on the site should do the same thing. Their adjustments are very specific.

But... I am not paying them $150 for $4 in parts!!!

Gonna add this to my list of things to try.

It looks like this could modulate the air mix faster than a O2 sensor ; and thereby give a boost to MPG + reduce emissions.

Hmm... time to build a website I think... so many things to try.

RE: Diesel part - yes; total BS.

RE: Acetone ; a lot of people are trying this ; results are 10-20% average on 75-80% of vechicles... the wild card here seems to be where you buy your fuel when getting results as some additives already in the gas negate the acetone.

Acetone seems to do a number of things -

1 - Clean the carbon out - reduces friction + improves flow.
2 - Changes the fuel burn slightly, like raising the octane.

D

If this check valve bleeds in additional air under high vacuum conditions, won't the ECU compensate by adding additional fuel? Also, I was of the understanding that the modern 3-way catalyst needs a certain amount of unburned fuel to keep it hot enough to work properly. Leaning out the mixture, may in fact increase emissions because you 'shut down' the catalytic converter. Anyone else have knowledge of this?

Also, the verbiage on the website is classic goobley-gook.

<But how does PowerJet USA work ?

Power Jet is a metallic device similar to a piston that oxygenates fuel. The additional air augments the combustion efficiency and improves the potency of the engine.
The subsequent enrichment of the mixture that enters the admission manifold equilibrates the carburation, improves the compression ratio and increases the volumetric efficiencies, this in burn tends save fuel, increases engine potency and reduction of the emission of pollutant gases.>

More engine mumble-jumble.

<1.1 Effects of Power Jet USA on acceleration

After accelerating, the increased flow of fuel merges with the accumulated air in the duct leading to the (admission) manifold. The mixture is injected into the cylinder and is burnt, helping the combustion to improve the potency of the engine. When the cylinder is empty the suction allows the input of air into Power Jet that uses this reaction. When the engine turns slowly and the volume of the air in the cylinder increases, it mixes with the gasoline without having to wait for the air from air tube control.

The mixture improves the proportion of air and fuel, making the combustion in the cylinder more efficient and improving acceleration>

I feel like I am at a political campaign speech. Lots of words spoken but nothing said.

agreed - the site's err "english" looks and reads rough... maybe translation errors?

And there is a lot of verbage to try and sell it. I do not agree with some of the explaintions used at the site.

But ; based on what I know of engines and vacuum here is what I think it does...

During changes in load; the vaccuum level can change erratically ; this is compounded by different cylinders on the intake stroke at different times... so instead of vaccuum levels like this:

20 lbs... 18 lbs...15 lbs...21 lbs... the device in question trys to reduce the differences in changes ...

You may be able to get...

20 lbs...19 lbs...17 lbs... 20 lbs... keeping the air density / feed more constant... which should in turn give better more consistant A/F ratios. Basically it trys to smooth out the vaccuum level changes. Another way to look at this - it moderates your pressure on the gas pedal.

This does not sound like much... but consider if A/F ratios are changing from 13.5:1 to 15:1... on variable basis... the this change brings it closer to 14.5:1 to 14.8:1 ...

Plus... O2 sensors - depending on the car - can be a single O2 for all cylinders... or two O2 sensors - 1 for each bank of cylinders. If just one or two cylinders are running lean... this can screw up the other ones and the A/F ratio = burn more fuel.

Sidenote - Consider if there were better controls - IE an O2 sensor per cylinder - then perhaps this would increase MPG thru better, faster metering.

Sorry got off track...

Again - this is only theory... not tested and is based on evalution of info presented on the site in question and knowledge of this issue.

D

But the volume of the intake manifold is what smooths out the variations in pressure levels. Most modern vehicles have a fairly significant volume in the intake manifold. The length of the intake runners also tend to have a smoothing effect on manifold vacuum.

The airbox volume also has an effect on the throttle response as well.

Does anyone know the average percentage of fuel a well running car uses(burns in the engine for power) vs. the percentage waisted(sent out the pipe to the cc)? A link would be great as well. I called a smog place to see if they knew and the guy there said that as far as he knew, before the catalytic converter there should be no more than 100 parts per million... 50 after the cc. Thats a very low percentage of unused fuel. Does that sound right? Or is there more to it. Please school me...

Dan

Hi Dan

here's some discussions you might be interested in

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/16228#newcomments

& the internal combustion discussion, which is part of Masu's excellent Future energy series

http://cr4.globalspec.com/blogentry/2032#newcomments

Hey Dan;

I can answer this ; one of my cars has the cat attached; but there is nothing in the cat itself to clean the exhaust. The car predated emissions testing here; and I had no idea until it had to go in...

According to the report ; the max PPM of fuel allowed was 136 ; the car tested at 142 PPM. [this idle test] This is a 302 V8, 5 Spd, Carb [yes NO Fuel injection] car - 23 years old ; I have owned it 13 years of those 23 years. Since there is no "cat" to clean the exhaust ... that is how much fuel is wasted or hitting the cat. This car is still on the road and runs perfect - MPG - about 20; but this is performance car.

Another interesting note; I had a car on the road that would get 36 MPG ; with a V6 - 1989, 220HP, 300FT, 5spd - it's PPM of fuel allowed was 50; [cruising test] it read 3 PPM. The idle test allowed - 200PPM, actual was 30 PPM. This engine also does not have an EGR valve or PCV valve... HMMM.

This has a special Yamaha engine in it ; which is also used in boat racing.

D

Sounds like a Taurus SHO- that was a great car...

Update;

Hi All;

Wanted to update on two tests;

1 - Acetone - showing roughly 5%-10% MPG increase. Trying a station that does not added ethanol to the gas for further testing. Research shows that ethanol not only lowers mileage ; but can also interfere in acetone MPG gains as well.

Also ; changed out spark plugs; they were as clean as when the were in the package new - this shows a definite change in engine operation. It appears mixture is burning more completely and hotter. There was no soot, no brown deposits which is normal, in standard engine. In fact I could have returned them - they were that clean.

This is after 3 tanks with acetone ; mixed at 3.5 OZ / 10 gallons.

Recommended is 1 OZ to 4 OZ acetone per 10 gallons. Each car is slightly different. More is NOT better; average is 3 OZ / 10 gallons according to all research so far.

2 - Just added new Halo plugs - www.haloplugs.com - to two test vehicles. Install is very specific - battery must be disconnected so computer re-learns with halo plugs installed. Results show computer resets within 60 miles / 100km approximately. Marked change in accel, idle, and low end torque [good for hwy MPG improvements]. Hard accel is also much smoother and very strong.

Also noted change in real time MPG from 26-27 MPG to 29/30 MPG [sometimes higher] in car #1. According to company website, full results are gained in approximately 600 miles / 1000 KM. Car is 1994 LHS , 3.5L - 150,000 miles.

As a gain of 10% is already noted ; they would pay for themselves very quickly.
Prices here are close to 4$ a gallon - in Canada.

Car #2 is still in "computer reset" stage ; but already shows better idle; and accel. Real time MPG up 1-2 MPG - from 18MPG to 20 MPG - this is a V8 Grand Cherokee, 5.2 L, 1995 - 130,000 miles.

Will share more results as testing continues.

Research Notes:

I have visited many websites and conducted a lot of research into where real MPG gains can occur and why. Acetone and Halo Plugs act on a very specific part of the engine - ignition rate/burn/temp and quality of this ignition.

Quality of ignition determines how fast a mixture is ignited and how quickly the flame kernel spreads. Halo plugs seem to improve on this in two ways - one - the opened nature of the plug and multiple spark points PER ignition.

There is another spark plug that also merits testing - www.directhits.com - the plugs are much more expensive ; but produce a much stronger spark - more amps=more heat=bigger bang. Also see www.pulstarplug.com - made by same company. See the graphics on this site why these work.

Acetone - this increases the length of the burn; resulting in more complete burn and cleaner burn ; also appears to be hotter burn too. There is a lot of different opinions on why this helps MPG. Cleaning the engine is one ; carbon deposits rob MPG big time. But the burn rates / temp also affect MPG too.

Both of these -plugs/acetone - do not add "secret free energy" to the engine ; rather they subtly alternate the transfer of energy which results in improvements in MPG at exactly the right time[s] while the engine is running.

PS: If you want to really blow your mind and learn more about how engines really function - look up the 6 stroke engine.

D

thanks for the write up Dave

But you said "more complete burn" in a dicussion I had before on this forum, they told me that only 1% of the fuel is not completely burnt in an engine.

In the engine when / how fast the fuel burns is just as important as how efficient the engine is at burning the fuel.

This is further compounded by different operating conditions.

IE rich mixture - 8:1 ; could still be burning 99% of the fuel but you are using TWICE as much fuel at this rate. Result - lower MPG

If you change the timing in the engine ; you could still be burning 99% of the fuel - but not using the energy produced at the right times. Result - lower MPG

Add to this ; the engine is efficient under certain conditions - certain loads / RPMS and speeds. The engine may burn 99% of the fuel while idling; or while cruising at 55 MPH, but at other times it could be less than 99%.

The MPG question is much larger than just how much fuel is burnt - it is how well, when, and other engine dynamics.

Plus - during actual combustion , water is produced which SLOWS DOWN combustion or results in incomplete combustion in certain parts of the cylinder. However - and this may give you a headache... if the combustion temp is higher - you make more power with the same fuel. Look at it this way - lighting a cigarette with a match or propane torch...

yeah, but getting right down to it, in order to avoid all these people worried about energy coming from no where, you have to explain where the energy was wasted before the improvement. The main inefficiency of engines is energy lost as heat, so anything that makes the engine run with less heat coming out the exhaust/rad should improve efficiency. Why does a faster burn improve efficiency? The fuel has a net amount of energy in it, it shouldn't matter if it's slow, or fast. Unless the slower burn causes the engine to work against itself.

Ahha, I just thought of this, the compression difference is greater when the piston is all the way up, so when 100% the fuel explodes there, instead of say 90% there, and 10% 1cm down, the fuel/air cools off more. Due to fact that the explanding space in the chamber allows it to cool off. So a faster burn should make a cooler running engine.

Ok - let's look at engine timing - a critical area.

As engine speed changes; the timing must change. An error of just a few degrees can change power output and fuel economy. This error is then multipled over 4, 6 or 8 cylinders.

You are correct - you want to ignite the fuel at exactly the right moment ; which is variable because of engine speed and load demands. As engine speed increases; timing changes to account for delays in ignition at higher speeds plus changes in mixture ratios and so on...

Consider that at just 2000 RPM in a 6 cylinder engine there are 16.5 ignitions per second occuring [2000 / 60 / 4 strokes * 2 revolutions to complete 4 strokes ].

With this considered ; any fractional change can affect performance.

The acetone makes the fuel burn hotter and for a longer duration of the power stroke. Hotter = more pressure , longer = more constant pressure. Acetone also keeps the cylinders super clean - so there is less carbon build up and less friction due to this build up.

Keep in mind this is only a fractional change. But - if power was extended for example from 85% of the power stroke to say 90% of the power stroke multipled over 4, 6 or 8 cylinders... this makes a big difference in MPG and power output.

Take this a step futher... during highway cruising the engine is using 5-10 HP to maintain speed [flat even surface]... a change of just 1 - 2 HP added [thru better burn, timing, spark plugs, O2 changes etc etc] would yeild 10-20% better MPG. To be clear - where the "torque" / "HP" is added in the powerband [in this case lower band] is critical to highway MPG.

According to research - a better burn / better timed ignition can be sensed in the engine and as a result the computer adjusts to a more optimum setting[s]. These adjustments include air-fuel and timing - both critical in power and MPG. Some computers will also adjust transmission shift points too... yeilding additional changes in MPG as well.

D

Ok,

I tried the acetone in car 2. The Grand caravan. Highway with cruise set at 65 mph with low or no wind on sunny warm day prior to acetone averaged at 26-27 mpg. With acetone and same conditions got 30-31 mpg. First tank with acetone.

Dan

What's the best, and cheapest way to make an engine run lean? do you know how to hook-up a potentiometer to an oxygen sensor, and how that works?

Here's an explanation of O² operation http://www.asashop.org/autoinc/dec2002/mech.htm

A resistor will change the input to the computer, spacing the sensor back would seem to be an effort to slow down the reading[output].

Be careful lean mixtures=holes in pistons.

I don't think from what I have found so far that just a potentiometer would work. Here's an explanation of and directions for building your own EFIE(electronic fuel injection enhancer). Start on pg 26. Not built or tested yet. Hopefully if the wife approves I will get the stuff and make it this weekend. It also mentions the o2 sensor spacers. I also built a MAP sensor adjustment box. I haven't used it yet but it reads out and adjusts good on the bench. I am waiting to install it and other devices until I get my scan gauge.

I want to get the spacers as well. I am glad you put that link in there. The place I saw had them for 20 bucks. A bit much for something probably found at the hardware store. Hmm. Maybe I'll take a look. Just get the thread count and size of the o2 sensor and I bet it if found some where with the conduit in Home Depot etc etc.

Dan

I guess I never added the link for the o2 sensor EFIE. My apologies. Here it is.

http://www.panaceauniversity.org/Chapter10.pdf

just a word of caution - if you live in an area with random emissions tests; leaning the mixture [too much] will lead to more nitrides in the emissions.

Make certain you can disable / remove easily.

If you have the Hanes manual for your car; it may tell you the range of voltage of your O2 sensor ; this can greatly help eval it's current state -working correctly - and how much you can mess with it to lean the mixture.

If you mess with it too much the computer will know and go into open loop mode - and there goes the benefits!!... are we having fun yet?

You only need to mess with the pre cat O2 sensor[s] ; post cat [if your car has them] only check cat operations.

You can also cause the engine to run leaner , if the temp sensor for the intake manifold is adjusted / has a resistor on it [thinks its hotter air!].

See the fuel econ link for this info in another post.

An old trick to get more HP is to relocate this sensor to get cooler air - and run richer - this is just reversing it.

D

Hey guys,

I got one for ya...

1. Oxygen in itself is very flammable/combustible correct?

2. The oxygen in the air we and our cars breath is a pretty low percentage correct?

3. These Hydro generating machines make oxygen and hydrogen gas at small amounts yeah?

4. Lets say we could get past the o2 sensor/ECU, is it possible that the little bit of hydrogen and oxygen from one of these machines added to the air intake would help combustion?

The "perfect" a/f ratio is 14.7 to 1 but how much of that air is actually oxygen? If you added more oxygen wouldn't you need less fuel?

But then that leads to overheating the engine right?

So what about adding water injection or something?

Also, the places that sell and have schematics on these o2 sensor tricking devices also say that it is not wise to use them unless you have the hydro or something to keep it cool. Sales ploy or possible truth...

This has all just came from stuff I have read on the web. My mind says that it sounds plausible in some way but I just think about it like this.

Just brain storming guys, let me know what you think.

Thanks, Dan

No, oxygen is not flammable at all. So, you can't beat the stoichiometric ratio.

OK good...

So combustion is a chemical reaction between oxygen or some oxidizer and some other substance/ fuel correct? A bunch of the crap you see on the web is for fuel oxidizers. Not saying they work, but is the theory behind them that they add oxygen to the fuel somehow? If so, wouldn't that be adding a higher percent of oxygen in the chemical reaction?

Basically, if you add more fuel to the fire you get a bigger fire. Simple...

If you add more oxygen to the fire, do you get a bigger fire then?

Sorry for the barney style, but that is why I am here talking to you guys. I am not the expert here...obviously lol just very curious and interested.

Dan

Don't worry about style. The trick here is that people share what they do know about and ask when they don't. And, I'm wrong lots of times and don't mind being corrected as long as I learn from it.

The 14.7:1 air/fuel ratio is about as good as you can get, provided you have good mixing and time to burn. The nitrogen in the air does cool off the process a little but usually not enough to justify going to pure oxygen. Extra oxygen, by the way, has the same effect - nothing happens to it except it soaks up some of the heat. Some people will argue these points, and they may be right, but they're arguing about the last couple percent improvement.

I used to burn coke gas with oxygen concentrations varying from 10% to 100% and there really was no big difference. Of course, gasoline is a lot better fuel than coke gas (we used to joke that carbon dioxide was a better fuel than coke gas), but the idea is still that adding extra oxygen, or purer oxygen, doesn't do much for you.

Here ethanol is added to pump gas as an oxygenator to reduce emissions, the percentage is increased in the winter.

Hey TVP ;

Just a couple of notes here...

Nitrogen is not part of the process unless temps get high ; and then you get NO2.

The % of oxygen does make a big difference. See post on NOS.

Air/Fuel ratio can be leaned further; depending on condition of the engine, compression, temp and other components of the fuel. Main reason for NOT leaning further is too much heat --> leads to piston damage --> plus emmissions of NO2.

Now this will sound strange - but what actually cools the mixture is MORE fuel - enriching , and AFTER combustion; the water produced in the combustion process.

The last part took a lot of research to find and verify.

Check out "6 stroke engine" - it will blow your mind.

D

David12,

I disagree. Nitrogen is part of the process, albeit in a fairly small way. It mostly doesn't burn but it does have a specific heat and thus cools the flame and its presence dilutes the oxygen content, changing where you are in the LEL - UEL range unless you adjust the A/F ratio. You can see this if you take it to an extreme; try burning anything in a 98%N₂, 2%O₂ mixture. But, in general, the effect is fairly small.

And, there is no oxygen in Nitrous Oxide.

I think we are perhaps talking apples and oranges. I believe you are talking about very specific engine performance while I am talking about combustion.

Looks like we were both right and wrong... see below.

NOS - Nitrous Oxide. Nitrogen combined with Oxygen.

As per expert post about "NOS":

Nitrous oxide is made up of 2 parts nitrogen and 1 part oxygen (36% oxygen by weight). During the combustion process in an engine, at about 572 degrees F, nitrous breaks down and releases oxygen. This extra oxygen creates additional power by allowing more fuel to be burned. Nitrogen acts to buffer, or dampen the increased cylinder pressures helping to control the combustion process. Nitrous also has a tremendous "intercooling" effect by reducing intake charge temperatures by 60 to 75 degrees F

http://www.holley.com/TechService/FAQ.asp?category=NOS

Hey Dan;

Nitrous Oxide - NOS - is an oxidizer... it is 40% oxygen, vs "regular" air which is about 20%. It definitely makes a BIG difference ;

Depending on the system; it can add 50% to 100% more power for a limited time - fuel burns much faster and hotter.

So yes ; rate of oxidation makes a difference in terms of power and economy.
Anything that affects BURN RATE affects these. Acetone affects burn rate.

This should not be confused with octane ; which is the ablity of the fuel to resist detonation - self ignition- during compression.

Side note on ethanol - this lowers the BTU of the gasoline. IE - you have less energy in the fuel vs regular gas. In fact ethanol - 1 gallon compared to 1 gallon of regular gas has only 80% of the same "energy" in a gallon of gas.

It is actually a worse fuel ; than plain gasoline. Propane and natrual gas have even lower BTUs per equilvent "gallon" so to speak.

Research so far shows that in some cars; using ethanol LOWERS MPG and power. So you may end up burning more to go the same distance. In E85 cars ; you definitely burn more fuel [E85 = 85% ethanol, 15% gas].

D

When CARB switched us from MTBE to ethanol, my mileage dropped a little more than 10%. MTBE is actually better stuff except the part where it stays in the water supply.

ethanol is wonderful I like mine over ice w/a little soda & a nice cigar!

as a fuel just a waste of good corn.

The local ethanol plant was set up so, the owner could make money from the ethanol & reduce the cost of the brewers waste to be fed to his live stock [cows]. The volume is only reduced 10-20% The federal $1/ gallon subsidy makes the whole thing fly.

1. No Oxygen is not Flammable, it is a neautral gas. Why would we breath something that can make us go KABOOM if you light a cigarette.

2. yes there is a small percentage of oxygen (21%) in the air we breath. however our bodies only use 7% oxygen in the air. Different fuels will require different amounts of Oxygen to make the most efficient burn. Gasoline requires 14.7 atoms of Oxygen to burn 1 molecule, Hence 14.7/1(this is not correct, I'm no genious. but this should give you an idea). Add oxygen or fuel and you've changed this value.

3 & 4. Yes HO systems make Oxygen and hydrogen. Hydrogen is a fuel, by using such a device/machine without using the oxygen you will lower Fuel consumption, because you are compensating one fuel for another. It is far too dangerous to completely replace Gasoline with hydrogen, because of hydrogens unstable characteristics (if you can read the periodic table of elements you'll understand) . you need do nothing to your o2 sensors, actually it is better if you leave them alone. they are a big part in that air/fuel ratio.

5. Burn lean, Burn hot. Burn rich, burn not so hot. Keep this in mind and you will not overheat.... Under normal driving conditions.

6. when Hydrogen and Oxygen burns it turns into water, here is your water injection system. Keeping in mind that your cylinder walls and valves are made of steel and steel will rust.

7. O2 simulators are for the post cat sensor. This/these sensors tell the ECU the condition of that catilityc converter. If you remove the "cat", for off road use (seeing as it's illegal in North America to remove catylitic converters) this is when you will need the simulator. It is a sales ploy. The "precat" sensor tell air/fuel. replace those and ya, you have some problems, but not big ones. The ECU will just throw more fuel into the engine, This will ensure a rich burn, and not burn lean and cause a cataclismic engine failure. This is called "limp mode", you can drive everyday in "limp mode", but you'll be going through a lot of fuel, about twice as much.

the more oxygen there is, the more fuel will be used. to keep the approx. 14.7/1 ratio. This is the purpose of forced induction (turbo/supercharger), this is also why on on such vehicles, you will have larger fuel injectors to add the extra fuel to compensate for being lean. wich equals more power.

If you do not add oxygen and fuel you do not increase power. by using HO fuel, you will increase mileage, because your engine will use less gasoline (because it is also using another fuel, Hydrogen made from water and water is free). I know this might be confusing by saying dont add fuel, but you are adding hydrogen. the computer compensates by using less gasoline. This is where O2 sensors are important, they will see that he car is burning rich with this added fuel, and decrease the amount of gas it puts in.

I hope this helps and makes some sort of sense Dan. I would get into HO systems more, but there are many forums and information on these systems online.

Alright, I received my special o2 extender that is a spark plug non-fouler drilled out to a half inch so I bought some from the auto parts store as well. Now, my stock o2 sensor is to fat to fit in the extender so I ordered another one. Its about time for one anyway. I am using a slightly longer non fouler that I found and may be seeing a difference. Too early to tell. Finished the MAP sensor thing and was just waiting to install when I got my scan gauge. Well I got my scan gauge and my highway MPG at 65 on a nice calm warm day (no wind) WITH the accetone mix came to about 40-42 with a few 46mpg spikes. Not a very long test though. Of course there is much more testing to be done and I also will need to get a control now that I have the scan gauge and what not. Going out of town at the end of the week though. Anybody else get any results with anything?

Dan

So does anybody know if adding acetone to your tank will hurt the fuel injector or pump over time? I saw something about that but see there are people here who do it. Has anybody been doing this for a long time and seen any negative effects?

I have only been using acetone in my fuel for a short while. For about the last 2-3 months. I have read plenty trying to find if it does hurt it and everything I can find looks ok. As one guy put. Your fuel system is not made of cheap plastic... It has to store, pump, filter, and inject gasoline for a very long time. Cheap plastics do not stand up to gasoline. The most I have heard of was slight expansion of seals after long soaks in pure acetone or a much stronger solution of acetone a gasoline than that what we actually use in the fuel.

Check this out. http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Acetone

Dan

What mixture do you use? I've found that it seems that 2-3 oz per ten gallons seems to be a good mixture. What type of increase have you seen from your use?

I use 3oz acetone, 2oz xylene, and 1oz 5-30 synthetic per ten gallons. I got this mix from smartgas.net. I see about 3-4mpg better on highway in my van and about the same in my car.

guys, I believe I dicovered why Preignition catalyic converters, hydrogen generators, and fuel heaters work. PICC's make hydrogen out of the fuel, H's flame front speed is way faster then the fuels, this makes the fuel explode faster. Hydrogen generators have the same effect. Fuel heaters heat the fuel, since combustion is a chemical reaction, and chemical reactions happen faster when hot, it also explodes the fuel faster. Another thing is the spark plugs, like the halo plug, they explode the fuel faster, to gain in mpg. What everyone's failing to see is that faster exploding gas causes a greater compression ratio in engines. To properly run a car on any of these devices the ignition timing need to be retarded a little, or the air mixture leaned. For a better explianation go to my website. I don't feel like copying and pasting it all here. www.atomicfueltech.com

Buznet,

I would believe you if you said it caused a higher pressure in the cylinder immediately after ignition. However, the compression ratio is mechanically fixed by the shape of the piston head, cylinder head, and position of the piston in the cylinder. It is the ratio of volume in the cylinder when the piston is at bottom dead center divided by the volume in the cylinder when the piston is at top dead center.

When you say: "What everyone's failing to see is that faster exploding gas causes a greater compression ratio in engines.", you leave engineers, mechanics, and many other wondering if anything else you say is equally wrong.

Regards--John M.

Thanks for letting me know. And yeah that's what I mean it causes more pressure immediately after ignition, a larger percentage of the gas explodes near top dead center, or the engine could be made to run lean, and run lean efficiently, and with out burning the engine.

Hope there are some real brains reading this one. Found this the other day. Looks as though it is the real pre catalytic converter but it uses electricity rather than exhaust gas heat to make hydrogen from the fuel. What do you guys make of it.

http://web.mit.edu/deweck/www/PDF_archive/3%20Refereed%20Conference/3_42_AIAA-2004-4553.pdf

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2004/06/arvinmeritor_cl.html

Get a life. If you're rich then you won't be bothered by this problem.

Wow thanks for your awesome insight. I am not sure what you mean by this though. I do not associate having a life with being rich. In my opinion they are 2 different things. See, I have a life, a great one. However, I am not rich. I have plenty of money for gas considering the average driving my wife and I do, and I have always been the one to accept that pretty much no matter how expensive things get we are all going to continue to buy gas and drive to work and take our kids to Disney land and all the fun stuff that comes with having a life. But this is not about wealth or popularity for me. It is about finding something better and maybe even learning some stuff while I'm at it.

So Highlander, if you could pull yourself away from your W.O.W. marathon and crawl into the sunlight from the depths of your parents basement, I encourage you too join us in having a life.

To all. I have completed my baseline with my Scan GaugeII, 2 tanks of gas 87 octane, fresh oil, new plugs, acetone in a few tanks prior to baseline tests and no modifications. The baseline with controlled (smoother) driving is 26.2 mpg. A bit higher than what its rated. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm

My driving is probably 60% highway and 40% city/stop and go. I am also in a very flat area of CA.

Thats it for now. David, you got anything new?

Dan.

I didn't see it posted in the list to correct an earlier post. If you are driving a pickup, do NOT run with the tailgate down, it increases drag and friction on the rear tires. Which results in the use of more gas per mile. Trucks are designed in wind tunnels to have the tailgate UP. Creating a circulating air pocket in the bed, that forces wind to flow off the back, as though it were a hard cover. If you are still concerned about air flow at that point, get a bed cover, either hard or soft.

What about completely removing the tailgate? I get about a 10% increase in mpg when I do.