MrG4Life

iTrader: (14)

...a continuous spike.

5gears-IS

iTrader: (5)

I wrote that wrong....I wanted to say....(and to explain better)....before acetone usage I was around 92 miles per .25 tank, after acetone it was over 100 miles per .025 tank.

PetesLS400

I tried this just for the heck of it after doing lots and lots of reading on it. It seems like people have been doing this for 20+ years with absolutely no negative effects, so why not.

From the info I read, I gathered I should add between 2-3 oz of 100% PURE acetone for every 10 gallons of gas, I found some at Walgreens, 16oz bottle for 2.99.

So I split the difference and added 2.5oz for every 10 gallons, the GS holds 20 gallons so that made it simple, 5oz. Twice I did check my mpg's before the acetone and I was making 18.9 and 19.3, I do about 95% city driving. I did not in any way change my driving habits or style and basically kept driving the same route to and from work and the gym. The first tank of gas with acetone netted me 21.2 mpg. So today I filled up again and added another 5 oz of acetone and we'll see what the 2nd tank averages. I have enough acetone for another tank after this one and after I run out of acetone I will drive a couple tankfulls without acetone to see if my mileage drops again.

I am as skeptical as some of you guys about this, but numbers done lie. We'll see how my little test unfolds.

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

Sorry Pete - I did this for four months and tracked the results on a spreadsheet. It didn't change my mileage no matter how much or little acetone I used. This was in my Scion tC, and over the four months I drove about 7000 miles, so I had lots of opportunity to see if this worked or not. It didn't.

I also did a small experiment - I put the old injector o-rings from my Supra in 100% acetone for a week. They swelled to over 200% of their normal size. So I wouldln't recommend running pure acetone any time soon if you want your fuel system to remain leak-free.

mmarshall

Chemical mileage tricks are a dime a dozen.....they rarely if ever work. In most cases, the best way to save gas is to simply drive moderately, keep the engine and tire pressure in proper condition, clear unnecessary weight out of the car, and consolidate trips.

RON430

If you wanted to do it right, you would have at least gotten finger nail polish remover with acetone. The outcome would have been the same but your exhaust would have gotten that desirable boudoir aroma that we all crave.

I have learned to not credit people with an overabundance of intelligence but if it was this easy to pick up 10% in mileage, this wouldn't be an urban myth. Hydrocarbon compounds are not all interchangeable and compatibilities with other components are just one issue I would have. I think some threads like this tend to come back as the myths come back and that is definitely a good thing.

One small thing to add is about switching to regular if your engine is recommended for premium. The octane number is really the ability of the engine to run and not knock, everybody knows that here. So the higher number means higher resistance. That usually means it can run higher compression ratios and advanced timing. Lower number can't. And of course we aren't talking about much here but there is a difference. Cars for some time have had knock sensors and if they sense it, they retard the timing (hard to do anything about CR). And what is really happening is that they are cooling the combustion somewhat.

Knock doesn't sound so bad. Ping sounds like something you actually might want. But the other term for this is detonation. And as Martha might say, it isn't a good thing. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that most engines in most applications won't be fine with regular and they will just lose power but I have seen how fast detonation can get out of hand and get really nasty. The point I would like to raise is that we use heat engines and the octane rating and knocking are playing around with how the heat engine works. I might be more inclined to save a few cents (although I don't) in the winter than the summer. If the electronics aren't smart enough or don't have the adjustability to cover the situation, you might regret saving that buck or two a fillup. My guess is that we are once again headed into the land of the turbocharger as engines drop in size but want to keep power and they can be finicky sonofaguns on things like fuel.

Please don't misunderstand, I am not fearmongering about using regular in an engine designed for premium but be aware that there are some other factors involved. And you can be getting knock and never hearing it inside the car but it starts doing its damage (usually on bearings as the firing sequences aren't balanced as the designer intended anymore) pretty quick. Better off just buying a car with an engine that is designed around reguar than convince yourself that you're the smartest guy in the room running regular in your engine.

As for the acetone, I'll leave that to you more adventurous souls.

bitkahuna

iTrader: (20)

Works great...

PetesLS400

Like I said, I'm as skeptical as anyone else. I started doing this mostly to disprove it, at the same time my numbers went up. How can you explain that?

Of course if you put something in 100% acetone it'll have negative effects, but theres a HUGE difference between soaking something in acetone and adding 5 oz to 20 gallons of gas. Its so diluted that it will not have any harmful effects.


My test is nowhere complete, I just posted the initial results.

What also made me notice that my car is burning less gas is that I always fill up every 10-12 days, this time I managed exactly 14 days between refills. I use this car very routinely, just work and gym and fridays to my folks house. My routine nor driving style has not changed.

So if anyone can explain how my mileage increased without just simply stating that it doesnt work then I'd like to hear it

But I'll keep posting my results and see where this goes.

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

I saw the same thing. Initial results were promising. After the third tank, all the "gains' were gone. I believe this is a result of the acetone being antagonistic to additive build up. Once the build up is gone, then the acetone builds up and we're back to where we started. Long term, no, there is no benefit. Short term - first two tanks of gas - yes, you'll see a small improvement, but it will diminish quickly and you'll be right back where you started with the added expense and hassle of adding an ounce or two of acetone to every tank. Also, if you read the information carefully, you'll see the proponents claim you need to experiment with the exact amount to find the optimum concentration. Stabilizing that concentration takes considerable effort which is why I used the spreadsheet - to ensure the concentration remained consistent. This means you have to know how much treated fuel is in the tank, how much fuel you added, and how much acetone you need to add to this new mixture to arrive at the concentration you "need." In the end, I found it to be more of a PITA than I ever saw in fuel economy change - again, the first two tanks showed promise, but by the third tank I was almost back to original numbers and by the fourth, fifth, and sixth tanks I could not distinguish between the original mileage and the acetone added mileage.

I've tried a number of different fuel additives over the years claiming to do what the acetone proponents claim because anything that could actually improve atomization would be a huge benefit. Unfortunately, those guys at the oil companies have already figured this stuff out and have included dispersants and surfactants in their fuel mixes, so adding something from a bottle, can, or barrel just doesn't have the effect you'd hope for.

I honestly wish it were true. It would be awesome to add an ounce or two of a relatively cheap chemical and improve gas mileage even 5%, but unfortunately, none of the products I've tested show empirical success over the long term.

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

A lot of this is not very accurate. Knock and detonation are one in the same. Pinging is not knock or detonation. Detonation can destroy an engine in seconds. I know this from experience, I've done it. Knock/detonation may be completely inaudible to a human being, while pinging is certainly audible, and some pinging indicates the engine is running the ragged edge of peak efficiency. Detroit called it, "the sound of economy" in the 70's and 80's (I'm sure you remember this too...) So we can ping and be OK as long as the pinging subsides. Excessive pinging can lead to detonation, but doesn't have to. Detonation can exist without any pinging and can literally crush your pistons and crack your cylinder head - again, I know this empirically not theoretically.

Detailed explanation of detonation here.

Using regular in an engine designed for premium with electronic controls preventing complete meltdown is possible, but not economical. I have personally seen a 35% loss of fuel economy from being 2 points low on octane with my Supra (another fine reason to leave California - 91 premium is a joke), and running the numbers it was actually cheaper to buy 4 gallons of 100 octane @ $6 a gallon and fill the rest with 91 octane @ $3 a gallon because the cost of operation per mile was cheaper than taking the hit with 91. Similar things happen when running regular in an engine designed for premium.

No, we will not see forced induction with smaller engines. Forced induction is a great way to get more power out of a smaller engine, but it is inherently less efficient than normal aspiration. Look at the brake specific fuel consumption for FI vs. NA, and you'll see NA engines are as much as 33% more fuel efficient than FI. The reasons for this are many, but primarily related to the low mechanical compression ratio required to control detonation in FI engines along with the added cooling provided by the fuel's heat of vaporization from running at least a full point richer than NA under load. So turbos are not going to be commonplace anytime soon (except on diesels, but that's because the principles of operation on CI engines are completely different than SI engines.)