Quote:
Originally Posted by suspectnumber961
I've followed this guy on a Yahoo group ever since he first started posting about this...and still can't tell whether it is BS or not. In fact...I tested 1 oz per 1 G in my wagon...but saw no mpg gain...just smoother running. Need to test it by slightly closing the choke next.
|
Why follow it? Old vehicles should only be affected by the percentage alone and acetones burn characteristics are well known, you vehicle likely has no sensors thus such a small amount also has no effect on octane or a signifcant affect on energy content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by suspectnumber961
I suspect it might result from an quirk in the Ford EFI system...but don't know....could be a quirk in this guys mind too.
|
More likely that is the reason as I alluded to and likely he is going by the scanguage alone as opposed to what his REAL fuel economy is. The scanguage CAN be tricked by placing things in the tank that aren't gas, ethanol does it as well, which I why I only go by my actual read fuel economy not by the scanguage.
Many here seem to believe an O2 sensor isn't affected by unburnt aeromatics, nothing is further from the truth, the question is do you want this?
Also most here aren't willing to test it at all giving the excuse they don't have a dyno, with a scanguage you can tell if your sensors are being cooked. If its giving non-sense its likely sensors being affected.
And whatever you determine on your own about acetone it is likely correct, I have tested it in many vehicles and it DOES NOT improve fuel economy enough to really justify it on any of them, but it DOES improve fuel economy on some of them by rather small amounts.
Cheers
Ryan