Really, acetone?

[gteclass]

also..
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/new...00069_Acetone/

any ideas?

[SVOboy]

This site says much more than I can: http://fuelsaving.info/

If you look at the other stuff on the PES site, you'll get an idea how BSy it is.

[ConnClark]

Acetone may get you slightly better mileage in a diesel because it behaves as an aromatic and bumps up the Cetane rating of the fuel a little. There are however commercial additives that are more effective such as Power Service and others don't harm your engine.

In a gasoline engine acetone is not going to get you a thing and may even reduce your mileage.

[blownintegra]

when I used to sniff acetone, my mileage went down...

so did my IQ...

[trikkonceptz]

Originally Posted by ConnClark

In a gasoline engine acetone is not going to get you a thing and may even reduce your mileage.

I say try it, I have been using Acetone in my vehicle for the past three months, it gave me an initial 4mpg boost @ 1mL per gallon and has remained consistent ever since. My car didn't seem to like it when I went to 2oz per gallon, but each vehicle may react differently to the mixtures. Optimal for me is 1oz per 10 gallon and along with my driving techniques and simple mods I have gone from 27mpg to 45mpg, (Check my Logs)

I also recently did a blind test on my wife car, and we also saw a 4mpg jump in it and then a 7mpg drop with the subsequent tank w/o Acetone.

So best not to take anyones word for it, try it. A 1 or 2 tank test will not harm your engine and of course once you stop all conditions return to normal. But without it I would not be at the MPG levels I am at now with my automatic ...

[ConnClark]

Originally Posted by trikkonceptz

I say try it, I have been using Acetone in my vehicle for the past three months, it gave me an initial 4mpg boost @ 1mL per gallon and has remained consistent ever since. My car didn't seem to like it when I went to 2oz per gallon, but each vehicle may react differently to the mixtures. Optimal for me is 1oz per 10 gallon and along with my driving techniques and simple mods I have gone from 27mpg to 45mpg, (Check my Logs)

I also recently did a blind test on my wife car, and we also saw a 4mpg jump in it and then a 7mpg drop with the subsequent tank w/o Acetone.

So best not to take anyones word for it, try it. A 1 or 2 tank test will not harm your engine and of course once you stop all conditions return to normal. But without it I would not be at the MPG levels I am at now with my automatic ...

hmmmm..... How does 1/3785th of a gallon additive translate into a 4 mpg boost? Answer: it doesn't. You filled the tank with more gas when you did the acetone test than you did without the acetone. Blatant proof is you have a 3 mpg drop below your base line without the acetone.

To truly top off a tank you have to fill it to the top of the neck. Then you have to put the cap back on and bounce and rock the car around to get the fuel to displace trapped air in the tank. You will have to do these two steps a few times. I have found I can pack an extra .7 gallons in my car that way. To get a consistent mileage reading you also need to do this each time you fill up. You also have to do it from the same pump having your car face the exact same way to rule out influence of slope of the pavement.

Also your wife has a 2006 car and your mileage is only 5.3% above EPA. To do this poor with my car I have to drive around with my foot in it almost all the time and my car was built back in 1985.

[gteclass]

Originally Posted by ConnClark

hmmmm..... How does 1/3785th of a gallon additive translate into a 4 mpg boost? Answer: it doesn't. You filled the tank with more gas when you did the acetone test than you did without the acetone. Blatant proof is you have a 3 mpg drop below your base line without the acetone..

This is typical naysayer logic... The percentage of the additive is not what is important, it is the vapor pressure and surface tension of the mixture of gasoline and acetone that gives the boost in efficiency. The drop below the baseline was probably because it takes a full tank on most cars for the computer to adjust the fuel trims for new gas. This is also why most people get best mileage out of the gas station they always go to. Not because the gas is necessarily better, but because the car is used to that particular gas.

Originally Posted by ConnClark

To truly top off a tank you have to fill it to the top of the neck. Then you have to put the cap back on and bounce and rock the car around to get the fuel to displace trapped air in the tank. You will have to do these two steps a few times. I have found I can pack an extra .7 gallons in my car that way. To get a consistent mileage reading you also need to do this each time you fill up. You also have to do it from the same pump having your car face the exact same way to rule out influence of slope of the pavement.

Really bad advice, topping off a tank in this way is extremely bad for your evap system. Please just fill up until it clicks once. If you record your mileage at every fill up and the ammount of gallons it took to get there the resulting average fuel economy will be accurate. Each individual mileage reading between fill ups will vary no matter what you do, but the average of your readings will be accurate when you look at a few fillups.

Originally Posted by ConnClark

Also your wife has a 2006 car and your mileage is only 5.3% above EPA. To do this poor with my car I have to drive around with my foot in it almost all the time and my car was built back in 1985.

For one thing, maybe his wife does drive around with her foot in it. And are you going by the old epa estimates for your car or the new ones. Not to mention, 80s cars are MORE efficient than todays pieces of junk. Trust me also, getting 5% better mileage on a V8 truck with todays emmissions and safety standards without any hypermiling techniques is a serious gain.

[elhigh]

This acetone idea is worthless for my truck, right? Carburetor doesn't care what goes through it so long as it's flammable, right? There are no sensors to fool into leaning out the mixtures.

[Lazarus]

Originally Posted by ConnClark

Also your wife has a 2006 car and your mileage is only 5.3% above EPA. To do this poor with my car I have to drive around with my foot in it almost all the time and my car was built back in 1985.

The relationship to EPA mileage has nothing to do with the question about acetone. It would be better to talk about why the protocol used and all the other reasons why tank to tank testing proves nothing would be better. Let the data and procedures speak for themself.

[ConnClark]

Originally Posted by gteclass

This is typical naysayer logic... The percentage of the additive is not what is important, it is the vapor pressure and surface tension of the mixture of gasoline and acetone that gives the boost in efficiency. The drop below the baseline was probably because it takes a full tank on most cars for the computer to adjust the fuel trims for new gas. This is also why most people get best mileage out of the gas station they always go to. Not because the gas is necessarily better, but because the car is used to that particular gas.

ummmm... gasoline has a surface tension of about 21 ergs/cm^2 and acetone has a surface tension of about 23.7 ergs/cm^2 . If you could please post a link to some scientific produced table of the surface tension of acetone and gasoline solutions please feel free to do so.

By claiming that acetone lowers the surface tension I assume you are trying to say that acetone makes the fuel atomize more completely and thus burn more completely? Seeing that most cars burn 98% of their fuel how does burning 2% more fuel translate into into a 4mpg boost unless your car gets 200 mpg? It can't cause the fuel to burn faster because you would end up with a knock and that would cause shock waves to bounce around in the combustion chamber scrubbing heat from the gases to the walls lowering efficiency. What exact mechanism causes this claimed boost in efficiency?

Car computers adjust a cars operating parameters fairly quickly. Want proof? Try changing out a faulty O2 sensor. It doesn't take a full tank of gas for the computer to adjust to this. The car runs better immediately.

Lets say that it does take a full tank of gas for a car's computer to adjust things. That would mean that trikkonceptz alternating tanks of acetone laced and pure gas would be a total wash.

Really bad advice, topping off a tank in this way is extremely bad for your evap system. Please just fill up until it clicks once. If you record your mileage at every fill up and the ammount of gallons it took to get there the resulting average fuel economy will be accurate. Each individual mileage reading between fill ups will vary no matter what you do, but the average of your readings will be accurate when you look at a few fillups.

I agree that there is truth to this statement. However in trikkonceptz's tests he was doing one tank with acetone laced fuel and the next tank without. There is no way to get a running average when testing in this matter. The only way to get an accurate reading is to drain the tank completely and then refill it or top the tank completely off with the former method being better than the latter.

For one thing, maybe his wife does drive around with her foot in it. And are you going by the old epa estimates for your car or the new ones. Not to mention, 80s cars are MORE efficient than todays pieces of junk. Trust me also, getting 5% better mileage on a V8 truck with todays emmissions and safety standards without any hypermiling techniques is a serious gain.

In my mileage log calculation I use the new epa estimates however I just fixed the front suspension and had an alignment. I will also have new tires before I top off next and the last tank was about 80% city driving. The old epa estimate for my car is 22mpg the current one is 19mpg.

but lets see how my car stacks up to a new one.

1985 Mercedes 300SD California emissions
3.0L turbo diesel
118 hp @ 4,350 rpm
177 lb-ft @ 2,400 rpm
new epa estimate 19mpg city 20mpg hwy 19 combined
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008c...olumn=1&id=339

2008 Mercedes Benz E320 Bluetech
3.0L turbo diesel
210hp @ 3,800 rpm
400 lb-ft @ 1,600 - 2,400 rpm
23mpg city 32mpg hwy 26 combined

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/2008s...E320%20Bluetec

I think new cars are more powerful and more efficient despite tougher emissions controls and more restrictive emissions devices. They are cleaner too

[gteclass]

I have not looked into the surface tension specs. Where did you get those? Are they for pure gasoline or are they from a specific oil companies MSDS on the gasoline they sell in the pump with all the additives? The surface tension claim comes from the sources that i listed in my original post. Also, I have seen many chemistry experiments yeild physical property changes that were not in any way averages of the properties of the components of the formula.

Also, where did you get this most cars burn 98% of their fuel idea from. Is this including the large percentage that gets burned off in the catalytic converter?

If it does cause the fuel to burn quicker then the ecu will see any knock and retard the timing which doesnt really mean anything by itself about fuel economy. Timing is all about making the flame front hit the piston approximately 15degrees after TDC. If the flame front moves faster, this would be a good thing as long as it still reaches the piston at that point.

The car may immediately start adjusting, but it takes about 200 miles for fuel trims to stabilize and even when they do, any little change will cause it to adapt more. Thats at least a half a tank no matter what you drive before the ecu actually knows what its doing.

trikkonceptz's procedure definitely could have been improved by using 4 consecutive fill ups with each step and averaging the results ignoring the tank of gas that the ecu is in transition mode. I am conducting my own experiment right now using this method. Ill post the results as they come it.

Also, try comparing a 80s economy car... say a 1986 honda civic with say... a 2006 Honda Civic. Or how about a 1986 Toyota Corolla with a 2006 Toyota. Of course with a high end luxury car your not going to see great gas mileage in the 80s.

[markweatherill]

I suggest that a large proportion of fuel is *not* burned in the catalytic converter.

Otherwise when you removed the cat. on a car, as some people like to do, you'd either see fuel spraying out the exhaust or huge mpg gains.

[ConnClark]

Originally Posted by gteclass

I have not looked into the surface tension specs. Where did you get those? Are they for pure gasoline or are they from a specific oil companies MSDS on the gasoline they sell in the pump with all the additives?

This is where I got my information on the surface tension of gasoline.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasc.../mats05037.htm
This source says gasoline has a surface tension of 20
http://www.corkind.com/ttn/cttn_12_9...ace_Energy.pdf

An exact number cannot be pinned down because there are different formulas, mixtures, etc for gas and even then the mixtures may be adjusted seasonally.

On page 1 is a breakdown of gasoline's components by weight
http://www.jdm-inc.com/files/Gasolin...ventional).pdf

The surface tension claim comes from the sources that i listed in my original post. Also, I have seen many chemistry experiments yeild physical property changes that were not in any way averages of the properties of the components of the formula.

According to part 4 of this analysis that claim won't hold when mixing acetone and gasoline.
http://neubranderinc.com/blog/2007/0...oline-concept/
In this case the author could not find an exact value for gasoline and chose to use an average of the surface tension of gasoline's components.

Also, where did you get this most cars burn 98% of their fuel idea from. Is this including the large percentage that gets burned off in the catalytic converter?

This information I got from a mechanic a couple years ago. However I did find an article on motor scooters which don't have to meet the strict emissions levels cars do and don't have catalytic converters. A 1968 2 stroke scooter emits 0.49% unburned hydrocarbons. A more modern 2 stroke scooter emits 0.11% unburned hydrocarbons. A modern 4 stroke emits 0.0168% unburned hydrocarbons. To get the percentage of unburned fuel I think we need to multiply these values by the stoichiometric fuel ratio of 14.7 for gasoline engines. So that results in 7.2% , 1.6%, and 0.25% of the fuel left unburned respectively. Granted these are motor scooters and not car engines however the budget for developing car engines is much greater than the budget for developing motor scooters. Also the technology employed to burn fuel efficiently and completely is far more advanced in a car engine than it is in a motor scooter. From this data I think it is safe to say cars burn 98% of their fuel.

http://wweek.com/editorial/3240/7867

Note: I think the author has CO2 confused with CO emissions

If it does cause the fuel to burn quicker then the ecu will see any knock and retard the timing which doesnt really mean anything by itself about fuel economy. Timing is all about making the flame front hit the piston approximately 15degrees after TDC. If the flame front moves faster, this would be a good thing as long as it still reaches the piston at that point.

An engine that has its timing retarded produces less power per unit of fuel and thus runs less efficiently.

The car may immediately start adjusting, but it takes about 200 miles for fuel trims to stabilize and even when they do, any little change will cause it to adapt more. Thats at least a half a tank no matter what you drive before the ecu actually knows what its doing.

trikkonceptz's procedure definitely could have been improved by using 4 consecutive fill ups with each step and averaging the results ignoring the tank of gas that the ecu is in transition mode. I am conducting my own experiment right now using this method. Ill post the results as they come it.

Also, try comparing a 80s economy car... say a 1986 honda civic with say... a 2006 Honda Civic. Or how about a 1986 Toyota Corolla with a 2006 Toyota. Of course with a high end luxury car your not going to see great gas mileage in the 80s.

I thought I might spend a moment debunking the source of this myth. If you look at the different versions by the originator of this myth you will see that he claims to have 50 years of data on this.
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://...s/additive.htm

However despite having 50 years of data his acetone ratios change wildly in the first 6 months and he claims that the ratios must be precise. He claims that he isn't in this for profit and he is giving these findings to the world for free. This was a half truth, at the time he was selling scan gauges for people to try and verify this myth. He is essentially pulling off the classic scam of giving away a fake treasure map and selling you a shovel.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

Mythbusters results on acetone as a fuel additive: Busted.

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode53

[gteclass]

Originally Posted by ConnClark

This information I got from a mechanic a couple years ago. However I did find an article on motor scooters which don't have to meet the strict emissions levels cars do and don't have catalytic converters. A 1968 2 stroke scooter emits 0.49% unburned hydrocarbons. A more modern 2 stroke scooter emits 0.11% unburned hydrocarbons. A modern 4 stroke emits 0.0168% unburned hydrocarbons. To get the percentage of unburned fuel I think we need to multiply these values by the stoichiometric fuel ratio of 14.7 for gasoline engines. So that results in 7.2% , 1.6%, and 0.25% of the fuel left unburned respectively. Granted these are motor scooters and not car engines however the budget for developing car engines is much greater than the budget for developing motor scooters. Also the technology employed to burn fuel efficiently and completely is far more advanced in a car engine than it is in a motor scooter. From this data I think it is safe to say cars burn 98% of their fuel.

Willamette Week | “Polluter Scooters” | August 9th, 2006

Note: I think the author has CO2 confused with CO emissions


An engine that has its timing retarded produces less power per unit of fuel and thus runs less efficiently.




I thought I might spend a moment debunking the source of this myth. If you look at the different versions by the originator of this myth you will see that he claims to have 50 years of data on this.
Internet Archive Wayback Machine

However despite having 50 years of data his acetone ratios change wildly in the first 6 months and he claims that the ratios must be precise. He claims that he isn't in this for profit and he is giving these findings to the world for free. This was a half truth, at the time he was selling scan gauges for people to try and verify this myth. He is essentially pulling off the classic scam of giving away a fake treasure map and selling you a shovel.

So by measuring the HC in the exhaust gasses, how are you measuring the ammount of fuel lost to blowby during the compression stroke? It ends up in the oil. Perhaps you should track down those scooters with their 1 or 2 cylinder engines that have probably proportional blowby for thier size and measure the gasoline content of the oil.

Timing is a bit more complex than that , more timing only means more efficient if the engine is retarded to begin with. You add timing if the flame front hits the piston late, you take timing if the flame front hits the piston early. When it hits it at the "right" time which is about 15 degrees past TDC then you are at ideal timing.

Maybe, just maybe, his acetone ratio changed so much in the first 6 months for experimental purposes, maybe he just didnt have the ratio correct. I have seen a couple mpg improvement so far and im not being precise really. Also, is he saying he will give you the treasure map with the purchase of a shovel, no, he gives you the treasure map and if you feel it looks like a probable location for treasure he just happens to also sell shovels. The device he is selling is useful with or without the acetone.

[ConnClark]

Originally Posted by gteclass

So by measuring the HC in the exhaust gasses, how are you measuring the ammount of fuel lost to blowby during the compression stroke? It ends up in the oil. Perhaps you should track down those scooters with their 1 or 2 cylinder engines that have probably proportional blowby for thier size and measure the gasoline content of the oil.

Two of these scooters were two strokes. Any blow by during the compression stroke would be mixed with the next intake charge. This would totally negate any effect of fuel slipping past the rings. Similarly in a four stroke car engine, the gas fumes in the blow by get sucked up into the intake via the PCV and burned that way. Otherwise if just one percent of the fuel slipped by the rings we would probably have about a gallon of gas diluting our oil when we changed it.

If your trying to imply that acetone some how magically keeps fuel from getting past the rings I suggest you try a different approach. This argument won't get you anywhere.

Timing is a bit more complex than that , more timing only means more efficient if the engine is retarded to begin with. You add timing if the flame front hits the piston late, you take timing if the flame front hits the piston early. When it hits it at the "right" time which is about 15 degrees past TDC then you are at ideal timing.

Maybe, just maybe, his acetone ratio changed so much in the first 6 months for experimental purposes, maybe he just didnt have the ratio correct.

If he says that its important to be very precise in the very beginning and he has been experimenting with this for more than 50 years, why would the latest 6 months of experimentation change his ratios so drastically? Typically people start with big changes and narrow in on an optimum amount by making little changes at the end. You would think after 50 years he would be making very very minor tweaks.

I have seen a couple mpg improvement so far and im not being precise really. Also, is he saying he will give you the treasure map with the purchase of a shovel, no, he gives you the treasure map and if you feel it looks like a probable location for treasure he just happens to also sell shovels. The device he is selling is useful with or without the acetone.

Not quite. He gives away a fake treasure map. People go follow the map and come back to him and say there is no treasure. He tells them that they can't dig it up by hand and they have to use a shovel. He sells them a shovel. people follow map and use shovel to dig. The people still don't find a treasure. The people wanted treasure and end up with a shovel they never wanted to buy. The only person with treasure is the scam artist selling the shovels.

[trikkonceptz]

Well Conn, you have put down alot of information on how my placebo (Acetone), does not work. To be honest, I picked up the tip from a fellow tuner that has been using it in his fuel for over 5 years, well before the gas crunch and he enjoyed the boost in mileage. I use it now religiously and I enjoy the boost in mileage.

No bit of scientific jabber will take away from the benefits my vehicle is seeing. And since I do not sell Acetone I have nothing to gain from promoting its use. Therefore bury yourself in inconclusive evidence and theories, while I enjoy exceeding my epa rating by insane amounts.

Hell, I paid $4.00 for the quart, which has lasted me well over 20 tanks so far and it should get me close to 32 tank fulls, divided by $4.00, its costing me pennies to fill with this stuff and I therefore react to it by saving myself 3 miles per gallon, 30 miles per tank lets say multiplied by 32, thats 960 miles of extra driving the $4.00 bought me. Real or not, it is my perception and if thats the price I have to pay then its justified.

I just wish that those who do not understand it would stop discouraging someone else from trying it.

[ConnClark]

There is more jabber on how it might work just for you trikkonceptz.

The placebo effect can play a role in real mileage improvements. Since how you drive plays a major role in mileage, mood of the driver has been identified as identified as a factor in fuel economy.

Happy content drivers are less likely to drive aggressively. Angry and frustrated drivers drive more aggressively. If you believe you are saving fuel by using acetone in your fuel and this makes you happy you may see real world improvements in mileage.

Beyond the placebo effect there is no scientific proof that acetone improves mileage.

Trust me I hate the draconian, oppressive, and unfair First,Second, and Third laws of thermodynamics as much as anyone. However I will live by these laws until someone finds a way to subvert or repeal them.

[trikkonceptz]

Funny thing though. For a moment lets assume it does nothing, has no effect. At least no one I know is claiming that it is detrimental other than it being a chemical you do not want in contact with your skin (Like Gas), or on the surface of your vehicle(Like gas).

SO basically we have found a chemical that blends with gasoline and does nothing to it at all, will combust in small quanities with no effect, will therefore burn off with no effect, thereby becoming no more than a phycological waste of money.

How many chemicals do you know of that can be mixed with gasoline to offer the same results? Meaning no results with no trace of its use?

Excluding Acetone, are there any chemicals to aid in the burning of fuel? No cleaners and deposit eliminators, aids to gasoline?

Because what we run on is not perfect, so therefore there has to a way to make it better than not using it. Obviously a question for chemical engineers, but as mythbusters say ... I still feel this one is plausible, and I only wish that Acetone in my tank would make me happier or less agressive and more prone to better driving.

[ConnClark]

Originally Posted by trikkonceptz

Funny thing though. For a moment lets assume it does nothing, has no effect. At least no one I know is claiming that it is detrimental other than it being a chemical you do not want in contact with your skin (Like Gas), or on the surface of your vehicle(Like gas).

Acetone weakens plastics and is detrimental to rubber. Many fuel system components are made of plastics and rubber that are sensitive to acetone. One example in particular is a diaphragm type fuel pump.

SO basically we have found a chemical that blends with gasoline and does nothing to it at all, will combust in small quanities with no effect, will therefore burn off with no effect, thereby becoming no more than a phycological waste of money.

How many chemicals do you know of that can be mixed with gasoline to offer the same results? Meaning no results with no trace of its use?

A few come to mind such as alcohol.

Excluding Acetone,

Acetone has been excluded.

are there any chemicals to aid in the burning of fuel? No cleaners and deposit eliminators, aids to gasoline?

Not a chemical per say, but an element. Platinum will act as a catalyst. Unfortunately mixing it with gasoline has not provided any real improvements in combustion efficiency or emissions according to the EPA.

Because what we run on is not perfect, so therefore there has to a way to make it better than not using it. Obviously a question for chemical engineers,

Incidentally I discussed this with a chemical engineer. He said adding acetone to gasoline was bunk too.

but as mythbusters say ... I still feel this one is plaus