 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / August 200710 to 25% better MPG, with 2 or 3 ounces of Acetone per 10 gals of gas
Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air pollution and the high cost of gasoline should know about this. Acetone in Fuels: Significantly Improved Mileage: This article about acetone (CH3COCH3) probably draws conclusions that Big Oil and the American Car Manufacturers and others do NOT want you to know. They suffer from unlimited corporate GREED. They want bad mileage. The worse, the better as far as they are concerned. Acetone is a vaporization additive rather than a fuel additive per se. It is successful in very tiny amounts from about one part per 5000 to one part per 500. Mileage seems to taper off while HC emissions actually are greatly reduced with too much acetone. The peak gain in mileage comes between .03 of one-percent and .20 of one-percent acetone, depending on the actual vehicle which may be running gasoline or diesel. Note .781 cc per liter or .78 parts per 1000 or one part per 1280 are the same as one ounce per 10 gallons. Acetone operates on the unburned portion of the fuel to gain added vaporization and improved combustion efficiency. above was excerpted from: http://www.lubedev.com/articles/additive.htm > Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, > and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air > pollution and the high cost of gasoline should know about this. Right up there with the fake moon landing, big foot, and the lochness monster. > > Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, > > and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air > > pollution and the high cost of gasoline should know about this. http://www.lubedev.com/articles/additive.htm > Right up there with the fake moon landing, big foot, and the lochness > monster. Maybe you work for an oil company. Scientific testing indicates that it works: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Acetone_as_a_Fuel_Additive >Maybe you work for an oil company. >Scientific testing indicates that it works: Pure BS!!!!!! There is no magic snale oil that you can add to fuel to increase efficency 10 to 25% period. This is kinda like the 80 MPG carbs that were supposed to exist in 60's and 70's because people want to believe in it. Heat energy is what drives a motor and acetone is not going to increase the heat content of fuel 10 to 25% to allow it to produce more power. I suspect that some that claimed to have benifited from it is because it is a power solvent and it cleaned out their fuel system so it worked better (so would a bottle of fuel system cleaner) and they believed it was the magic of acetone. You are far more likely to gain 5 or 10% more MPG with higher octane fuel in a modern engine than with any snake oil like acetone. A modern gas engine is about 30% efficent (give or take) at best and there is about 50 HP in a gallon of 100% gas which mean best case is maybe about 16 HP hours at fly wheel for each gallon of fuel burned. No snake oil is going to change this but a fuel octane too low can reduce efficency so less power is captured from fuel. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com >>Maybe you work for an oil company. >>Scientific testing indicates that it works: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >carbs that were supposed to exist in 60's and 70's because people want >to believe in it. There is that magnet that you can put around the fuel line. <G> >>>Maybe you work for an oil company. >>>Scientific testing indicates that it works: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > There is that magnet that you can put around the fuel line. <G> The folks who think that such things as magnets and additives (which the big bad auto manufacturers and oil companies buy out to keep the status quo) are legit are probably prone to believe that you can drive from New York to Florida by simply taking off the hand brake and steer, because if you look at a map, it's all DOWNHILL. > >>>Maybe you work for an oil company. > >>>Scientific testing indicates that it works: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Florida by simply taking off the hand brake and steer, because if you look > at a map, it's all DOWNHILL. But this is true I've done it. Ok I didn't make it all the way. I came to a stop right in front of a gas station, coincidence? I think not. Obviously big oil is putting up invisible barriers to stop cars from coasting so they can sell more of their bloody oil. I'm working a special device that will override these invisible barriers. If you are interested in investing in this once in a lifetime opportunity just send me your bank account number along with social security number and home address to www.identitytheft.com On May 6, 12:55 pm, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" <DwightSchr...@DunderMifflin.com> wrote: > >Pure BS!!!!!! There is no magic snale oil that you can add to fuel to > >increase efficency 10 to 25% period. That's exactly what the oil companys would like everyone to believe. According to scientific research - about 3 ounces of Acetone added to every 10 gallons of gasoline helps some people, but NOT all, get significant increases in number of MPG, and also helps their cars run better. http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Acetone_as_a_Fuel_Additive http://www.lubedev.com/articles/additive.htm Furthermore, the oil companies have purchased & locked up in their safes, certain devices that can cause gasoline & diesel engines to get huge increases in their mpg. Oil companies are there to make billions, NOT to clean up the environment or to help people spend less on fuel. Their greed knows no end. > On May 6, 12:55 pm, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > billions, NOT to clean up the environment or to help people spend less > on fuel. Their greed knows no end. The generally accepted rule was that gas goes 1/3 to heat to cooling system, 1/3rd to heat out the exhaust pipe and 1/3 toward moving the car. These were from years ago and no doubt have changed a bit for many reasons. Anyhow, to double the mileage or whatever the claim may be, you would have to cut the other two in half (in combination). Now, to business realities. There are more thanone or two engineers employed by car companies. If they could supply their firm with a device or combinatio of same to do what you claim the oil firms have hidden away, and thus gain o,e hell of an advantage over the others, don't you think that they would have? >On May 6, 12:55 pm, "Bonehenge (B A R R Y)" ><DwightSchr...@DunderMifflin.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >significant increases in number of MPG, and also helps their cars run >better. I'll bet you believe donkeys can fly too! Again anyone that gains form it has a durty system that acetone helps clean out. Least not forget the acetone is not at all kind to your fuel hoses and seals either. >Furthermore, the oil companies have purchased & locked up in their >safes, certain devices that can cause gasoline & diesel engines to get >huge increases in their mpg. Oil companies are there to make >billions, NOT to clean up the environment or to help people spend less >on fuel. Their greed knows no end. It just get deeper all the time with you. You know I actually studsies IC engine design and thermodynamic principles many years ago in college and there is no magic formula to boost engine MPG. Most of the energy from gas goes out tail pipe and cooling system and the balance goes to flywheel after you subtract internal friction losses. A IC engine is a heat engine driven by energy in expanding gasses created by fuel burned. Like I said earlier, there is about 50 HP or heat energy in a gallon of pure gas and no additive short of nitro methane is going to boost that. The magic cure to boost MPG is to raise CR of engine and increase octane of fuel becuase the main reason diesels are more efficent at times is because they have a much higher CR than a gas motor and extract more energy from expanding gasses (called expansion ratio). While it is true that diesel has more energy in fuel too it is the higher CR that makes it shine. If oil companies and Detroit is doing anything to keep demand up it is the myth that 87 octane is all you ever need because as long as it is the mainstay, engine designed have to be compromised in design and operation to prevent them from being destroyed by detination from low octane gas. The ONLY reason there is a knock sensor on a engine is to keep consumer happy with his 87 octane feed by retarding sprak and reducing efficency and lower MPG and which provides the seeds for belief that a magic cure is being hidden and locked away. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com > Most of the > energy from gas goes out tail pipe and cooling system and the balance > goes to flywheel after you subtract internal friction losses. Ummmm....the friction losses are EXACTLY what go to the cooling system, with some no doubt going out the tailpipe. No need to subtract them twice. >> Most of the >> energy from gas goes out tail pipe and cooling system and the balance [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > No need to subtract them twice. Well, there is a certain amount of combustion energy that goes to the cooling system. I suspect there is far more combustion energy at the radiator than friction energy, but what do I know ... >Ummmm....the friction losses are EXACTLY what go to the cooling system, >with some no doubt going out the tailpipe. You are not correct. Fricton goes to heat in block and most of that heat goes to cooling system (a very small amount is lost to air flow over engine) and then there is the fricton from shearing the oil which heats it up too and that goes to cooling system as well with some (a small amount) being lost in pan to airflow or a greater amount to airflow if you have a aux external engine oil cooler. The only heat from this to go out the tail pipe is from the extra fuel burned to overcome the friction not the heat from the fricton itself. Also a small fraction of that heat is lost to heating incoming mixture but this is a very small percentage unless you are running pure alchol and then the heat loss is a little higher. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com > In article <3jrs3317ph2svkas6922f3vc5g2d5bn...@4ax.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No need to subtract them twice. Not all the heat handled by the cooling system comes from frictional loses. The majority of it comes from keeping the cylinder walls and cylinder head cool. The cylinder walls are heated by friction to some degree, but most of the heat comes directly from the heat of combustion. Much of the heat generated by friction is transferred to the lubricating oil. The oil is also cooled somewhat by the main cooling system, but it also is cooled directly by contact with the oil pan, and for cars with sperate air to oil coolers seperately, by the air flowing trhough the cooler. Ed >Not all the heat handled by the cooling system comes from frictional >loses. The majority of it comes from keeping the cylinder walls and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >pan, and for cars with sperate air to oil coolers seperately, by the >air flowing trhough the cooler. I did not say it that. I said that the energy from gas drives engine and the heat lost through cooling system is from the burning of fuel AND friction. Heat from fuel is the majority of heat to cooling system but friction generates some heat too. I did mention aux external oil coolers but even then the transfer some of the heat to cooling system either because of a heat exchanger in the radiator or a seperate cooler in front of the radiator which heat the air before it enters radiotr and reduce radiaator efficency some so directly or indirectly it goes into cooling system with a small percentage being lost through pan. Most of the waste heat goes out the tail pipe under WOT operation. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com "You know I actually studsies IC engine design and thermodynamic principles many years ago in college........." "studsies" ??????? ..............by retarding sprak and reducing efficency and lower MPG........ "sprak" ??????? "efficency" ?????? TheSnoMan.com Bugs Bunny said it best: "What a Maroon"! Spdloader >"You know I actually studsies IC engine design and thermodynamic principles >many years ago in college........." [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >MPG........ >"sprak" ??????? "efficency" ?????? You must be realy bored or have a ego issues if you are so fasinated with typos's! ----------------- TheSnoMan.com > You must be realy bored or have a ego issues if you are so fasinated > with typos's! > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com I'm "realy fasinated" that you refer to your lack of ability at conversing intelligently as "typo's"  SignatureDavid M (dmacchiarolo) >>"You know I actually studsies IC engine design and thermodynamic >>principles [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com Actually Snojob, you don't realize it, but your grammatical "faux pas", contribute to your creditability, or lack thereof. Plus, I am bored, and, love to point out that you're an idiot. Spdloader > >>"You know I actually studsies IC engine design and thermodynamic > >>principles [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Spdloader Makes you wonder if everything he does is that sloppy... >> >>"You know I actually studsies IC engine design and thermodynamic >> >>principles [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> > ----------------- >> > TheSnoMan.com I have no doubt about that, 'cuda. Spdloader >> Actually Snojob, you don't realize it, but your grammatical "faux pas", >> contribute to your creditability, or lack thereof. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Makes you wonder if everything he does is that sloppy... "Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> said in rec.autos.driving: >> You must be realy bored or have a ego issues if you are so fasinated >> with typos's! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Actually Snojob, you don't realize it, but your grammatical "faux pas", >contribute to your creditability, or lack thereof. The word is "credibility," moron. >Plus, I am bored, and, love to point out that you're an idiot. It always cracks me up when some dumbass makes a misspelling right in the middle of flaming someone else for their misspellings. :) SignatureMFFYCam Videos Galore: http://www.geocities.com/mffycam/ > "Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It always cracks me up when some dumbass makes a misspelling right in > the middle of flaming someone else for their misspellings. :) Well, Scott, you apparently missed it when I called him a "maroon". Instead of a moron. There is a reason for it all. Spdloader > "Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It always cracks me up when some dumbass makes a misspelling right in > the middle of flaming someone else for their misspellings. :) Here ya go Scott in Aztlan. creditability noun Appearance of truth or authenticity: believability, color, credibility, credibleness, creditableness, plausibility, plausibleness, verisimilitude. See likely/unlikely. Now, I won't call you names, you can pick one for yourself. Spdloader > "Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It always cracks me up when some dumbass makes a misspelling right in > the middle of flaming someone else for their misspellings. :) One more thing. Credibility speaks as to the credit of the story or message, while creditability, speaks as to the credit of the teller, or, originator of the story or message. Applied to this case, SnoJob has no creditability, and his stories and guesses have no credibility. Spdloader > "Spdloader" <askfo...@nospam.triad.rr.com> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > -- > MFFYCam Videos Galore:http://www.geocities.com/mffycam/ FWIW: I'm MENSA qualified, but not a member. Horrible at sports and playing a musical instrument, poor dancer, great writer when I want to be, but a poor speller, was used as the problem-solver at most of the places where I worked, good lover, good public speaker and debater and the one the others at the car museum come to for automobile answers.. I used to do a brake job in record tile, but drop the screw under the distributer rotating plate when doing a tune-up. (My only car is over forty years old.) Like everyone else, my skills vary all over the spectrum. Knot awl uv us are grate spelars. On May 7, 7:11 am, Scott en Aztlán <scottenazt...@yahoo.com> wrote: > "Spdloader" <askfo...@nospam.triad.rr.com> said in rec.autos.driving: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > -- > MFFYCam Videos Galore:http://www.geocities.com/mffycam/ FWIW: I'm MENSA qualified, but not a member. Horrible at sports and playing a musical instrument, poor dancer, great writer when I want to be, but a poor speller, was used as the problem-solver at most of the places where I worked, good lover, good public speaker and debater and the one the others at the car museum come to for automobile answers.. I used to do a brake job in record tile, but drop the screw under the distributer rotating plate when doing a tune-up. (My only car is over forty years old.) Like everyone else, my skills vary all over the spectrum. Knot awl uv us are grate spelars. True, but SnoJob is an idiot. It's easy to overlook simple spelling of the normal folks in here, but he's not one of 'em. Spdloader > You must be realy bored or have a ego issues if you are so fasinated > with typos's! > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com "You must be really bored or have an ego [issues], since [if] you are so fascinated with typo's." hee-hee. So am I. :~)> bob z. I think the acetone thing is BS. At the very least it is not worth introducing something like that into the fuel lines. There is a simple way everybody can save gas. It is called the accelerator. Ease off it and you save alot of gas. If you drive 55-60 mph you generally save alot of gas too. Checking tire pressure is also a cheap way to save some gas. > I think the acetone thing is BS. At the very least it is not > worth introducing something like that into the fuel lines. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 55-60 mph you generally save alot of gas too. Checking tire pressure > is also a cheap way to save some gas. Here, near NYC, it is called, "the train." Ride it, save the cost of tolls and you get to read as you go. There's even a potty on board, for those times you really have to go. Jeff Jeff <news@googlemail.com> wrote in article <IJ80i.8388$Q96.2986@trnddc04>... > Here, near NYC, it is called, "the train." Ride it, save the cost of tolls > and you get to read as you go. There's even a potty on board, for those > times you really have to go. Maybe it's just me, but I would be much more comfortable with a full, adult-sized restroom...... A silly question : Then why do they sell pure acetone in cheap plastic containers if it dissolves/corrodes expensive fuel lines? >A silly question : Then why do they sell pure acetone in cheap plastic > containers if it dissolves/corrodes expensive fuel lines? The acetone doesn't dissolve the type of plastic that the acetone bottles are made of. Jeff >A silly question : Then why do they sell pure acetone in cheap plastic >containers if it dissolves/corrodes expensive fuel lines? They don't. The pure acetone I have is in a cheap metal container. I imagine any pure acetone sold in plastic containers is sold in plastic which is specifically selected for its resistance to acetone. Fuel line materials are chosen for other reasons. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >A silly question : Then why do they sell pure acetone in cheap plastic > containers if it dissolves/corrodes expensive fuel lines? Acetone in a plastic container would be in polyethylene, which holds up to it as it is a most inert plastic type. The O-rings that it would dissolve are made of types of rubber. Different stuff molecularly. I used to work in a chem lab (polyethylene R&D) and we used acetone to clean everything, pretty much a universal solvent. Tomes > >A silly question : Then why do they sell pure acetone in cheap plastic > > containers if it dissolves/corrodes expensive fuel lines? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > pretty much a universal solvent. > Tomes Ahhhhhhhh Not Plexiglass, I hope. "Studemania" ... > "Tomes" : >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Ahhhhhhhh Not Plexiglass, I hope. I suppose I meant we used it to clean everything (chemically) off of our glassware.... Tomes On May 6, 1:48 pm, Max <maxhem...@yahoo.com> rode off into the sunset after suggesting: > According to scientific research - about 3 ounces of Acetone added to > every 10 gallons of gasoline helps some people, but NOT all, get > significant increases in number of MPG, and also helps their cars run > better. > > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Acetone_as_a_Fuel_Additive Gee; if it's in Wikipedia, *it must be true* ... unless you wrote it yourself. C'mon, Max; 'fess up. It's really bad form to *cite yourself* as a reference, you know. > http://www.lubedev.com/articles/additive.htm Selected shining piece of bullshit from that page: "rapid inherent molecular vibration" of acetone. I'll bet the fuel line magnets really excite that, too. No wonder you don't want any 'Tornados' or other flow-disruptors messing around with that molecular vibration! This could bring the universe to a grinding halt! > Furthermore, the oil companies have purchased & locked up in their > safes, certain devices that can cause gasoline & diesel engines to get > huge increases in their mpg. Oil companies are there to make > billions, NOT to clean up the environment or to help people spend less > on fuel. Their greed knows no end. Hey, I'm not scared. I've got enough tinfoil to make hat liners to the end of my days ... -- C.R. Krieger (Laughing all the way) > >>Maybe you work for an oil company. > >>Scientific testing indicates that it works: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > There is that magnet that you can put around the fuel line. <G> To OP: This is old old old news. This topic was debated to death in several loooong discussions months ago. SignatureI. Care Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-} > Pure BS!!!!!! There is no magic snale oil that you can add to fuel to > increase efficency 10 to 25% period. This is kinda like the 80 MPG > carbs that were supposed to exist in 60's and 70's because people want > to believe in it. Heat energy is what drives a motor Speaking of which, whatever happened to Smokey Yunick's adiabatic engines? "Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop- BB0EB6.14555106052007@nntp1.usenetserver.com: >> Pure BS!!!!!! There is no magic snale oil that you can add to fuel to >> increase efficency 10 to 25% period. This is kinda like the 80 MPG [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Speaking of which, whatever happened to Smokey Yunick's adiabatic > engines? Never went anywhere. Car and Driver sent out a couple of guys (Don Sherman and Patrick Bedard?) in the '80s, to investigate just that. Apparently Smokey was quite reticent about details, and insisted on running the car on Indolene (a research fuel) and would not allow the CD crew to fill the car with retail pump gas. And can you imagine the NOx emissions? SignatureTegger >Never went anywhere. Back in the late 70's and early 80's they played with a ceramic engine that had no active cooling and it was about 50% more efficent (running 40 to 45% efficent on pump gas) but they dropped it because while they could get the engine to run and last a long time if it was never shut off and allowed to cool it had issues from constant heat on cool cycles that a engine sees in a consumers car. The next big step for gas engine will be direct injection which can in theory increase efficency 10 to 15%. It should start to become more wide spread by 2010 or so. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com >>Never went anywhere. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > efficency 10 to 15%. It should start to become more wide spread by > 2010 or so. A while back the New York Times has an article about this. It said that these engines were more efficient in a particular speed (RPM) range. This makes me think that they will work particularly well on cars with CVTs and/or hybrid systems. Jeff > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com > >Never went anywhere. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com I seriously doubt that the engine was 40% to 45% efficient. The most efficient power plants barely approach 40% efficiency. In theory an otto cycle engine running at wide open throttle could be very efficient, but reality suggest that the best you are likely to do is 30% efficiency under ideal conditions (high compression ration, around 13:1; no throttling, minimal friction, no heat rejection to the cylinder walls,etc). Real world engines are closer to 17% efficiency. So, a 50% increase on 17% would be around 25%. This is at least believable. Ed >> Pure BS!!!!!! There is no magic snale oil that you can add to fuel to >> increase efficency 10 to 25% period. This is kinda like the 80 MPG [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Speaking of which, whatever happened to Smokey Yunick's adiabatic > engines? Great question! There's the thinking man showing up. That idea would work if you could build a ceramic engine or something like that. Adiabatic engines melt down. | > There is no magic snale oil that you can add to fuel to | > increase efficency 10 to 25% If injectors* are very clogged, 1 / 2 bottles of detergent can clean * til efficiency may rise by 10%. www.aa1car.com/library/2003/ic30336.htm I find Abro brand can work, but no brand names its ingredient, all very coy. I cant really comment on acetone increasing mpg, and I have my doubts. I would believe it to clean the fuel system though, since it is a powerful solvent, and I have used it with a brush to clean carburetors during rebuilding them. I have also used lacquer thinner. Both work better to clean parts than the so called "carb cleaners". However, I would not use either as an additive, since I'd tend to think the both of them could damage the rubber and other synthetic parts of a carburetor/injector and other fuel components including the fuel hoses and fuel pump rubber parts. On the other hand, about 20 or more years ago I worked for a roofing company. We had large drums of Naptha which was used to clean rubber roofing prior to using the adhesive on the rubber. Several of the guys would add a pint or so of this Naptha to a tank of gas, and claimed it would increase engine power. They said that this was used in racing fuels. After seeing that none of them were having engine problems and knowing it would not harm rubber, I decided to give it a try, and they were right. I noticed a significant increase in engine power. This was an older car with a carburetor. How it would work with injectors is questionable. Supposedly it increased octane. I began to use it regularly, since it was available and free for the taking. I never had any engine problems, in fact that Chevy V8 engine lasted over 300,000 miles, and still ran when the transmission finally died and the body was falling apart from rust. >>Maybe you work for an oil company. >>Scientific testing indicates that it works: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >----------------- >TheSnoMan.com >> Maybe you work for an oil company. >> Scientific testing indicates that it works: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com I would be concerned as to what the Acetone was doing to the hoses and seals and any parts of the fuel pump. If it were actually recommend by chemists one would suspect the would be telling you to add an oxidizer to the air flow, not the fuel. LOL mike >>> Maybe you work for an oil company. >>> Scientific testing indicates that it works: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I would be concerned as to what the Acetone was doing to the hoses and > seals and any parts of the fuel pump. >> Pure BS!!!!!! There is no magic snale oil that you can add to fuel to >> increase efficency 10 to 25% period. This is kinda like the 80 MPG >> carbs that were supposed to exist in 60's and 70's because people want >> to believe in it. Sure there is! My product does it perfectly well. If you add just one gallon of my product to every ten gallons of gasoline, you will find that your gas mileage improves by 10%. You will be using 10% less gasoline to do the job. And my product only costs ten dollars a gallon.... --scott (rapidly funnelling gasoline into gallon bottles as we speak...) Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." > > > Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, > > > and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Acetone_as_a_Fuel_Additive Where is the scientific study? Because if the following is all you have, it ain't enough as this is just nonsense talk. Still, fuel needs a kick of some kind to transform from big globs into a full vapor. The acetone provides that kick with its rapid inherent molecular vibration that prevents fuel from escaping the combustion process and going through unburned. What, scientifically, is this kick that fuel needs? In what way is acetone providing it? And if this kick is necessary and only acetone can provide it, exactly how is it that engines have ever run without it? Best estimations are that Acetone added to fuel may act as a cleaner dissolving deposits within the fuel system. The same thing any fuel system cleaner will do for you. > Maybe you work for an oil company. > Scientific testing indicates that it works: > > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Acetone_as_a_Fuel_Additive I must have missed the "Scientific testing" portion of the link while skimming through it. All I read were anecdotal reports, I didn't see any real reputable science lab tests listed. Did I overlook the real science done by credible real scientists? SignatureI. Care Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-} "I. Care" <icare@spamthis.com> wrote in message > Did I overlook the real science done by credible real scientists? No really scientific work done on this as far as I can see. A colleague of mine tried this sort of thing years ago as a fuel for his 50-60s era stock car. Even that was not done scientifically, but he claimed that systems of gasoline-acetone-water seemed to hold some promise in racing. He dropped the idea as the elements of the fuel system had a high failure rate with this concoction. I suspect that, if it worked as he told me, the effects may have had to do with preignition, detonation, etc in these older technology engines which were pushed about as far as they could go at that time. (The friend WAS a scientist, but the testing was done on a trial and error basis and the results were subjective) > "I. Care" <icare@spamthis.com> wrote in message >> Did I overlook the real science done by credible real scientists? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > A colleague of mine tried this sort of thing years ago as a fuel for > his 50-60s era stock car. ///snipped for brevity/// Am I the only one to remember this (or perhaps I dreamed it) that in the late 40's and into the 50's a company advertised in magazine such as Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, etc., a SUPER FUEL ADDITIVE that would run an internal combustion engine on nearly any liquid, including plain water! The entrepeneur and his reps toured around giving demonstrations where they attached a one gallon jug of water to a car or truck engine, added their "magick potion" and fired it up. Guess what? The engine ran! Not only did it run but it ran fine. What was the additive? Acetone! The only problem (not mentioned by the sellers of the snake oil) was that the engine life was severely reduced. I don't recall the nature of the problem but something about burnt valves and upper end problems as the acetone washed the lubricant off the upper parts of the engine, as I recall. Bottom line - after a few years the ads disappeared because the company and its personnel were engaged in a legal battle with several states and the feds. I believe that fraud was the word most often used. DaveD <...> > Am I the only one to remember this (or perhaps I dreamed it) that in the > late 40's and into the 50's a company advertised in magazine such as [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > DaveD If acetone really did deliver such improved fuel mileage, engine engineers would be able to figure how to lubricate engines properly while using acetone. But the reality is that fuel is burned nearly completely as it is in engines. Which means that you're not going to gain much efficiency in cars by burning fuel more completely, as claimed by the acetone people. Jeff >> "I. Care" <icare@spamthis.com> wrote in message >>> Did I overlook the real science done by credible real scientists? [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > DaveD I asked a friend who is an R&D chemist developing automotive fuels for the oil companies about adding acetone. I was surprised when he said that adding some acetone would probably improve the combustion process, power output, and fuel economy, but at the definite cost of reduced fuel line, gasket, and O-ring life. From a cost/benefit perspective, he said that the cost of alternative fuel lines, gaskets, and O-rings that could tolerate the acetone would negate the benefit derived from adding the acetone. Bottom line, he said that they have already been there, done that, and would add it to their formula if it was worth it. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) <<but at the definite cost of reduced fuel line, gasket, and O-ring life>> I never knew Acetone was that corrosive, I know my wife uses them to clean off nail polish, so where else do they use Acetone by the way? as an industrial cleaner? > <<but at the definite cost of reduced fuel line, gasket, and O-ring > life>> > > I never knew Acetone was that corrosive, I know my wife uses them to > clean off nail polish, so where else do they use Acetone by the way? > as an industrial cleaner? I am no chemist, but I think that acetone ruins rubber and neoprene because it dissolves, not necessarily corrodes the rubber. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > > <<but at the definite cost of reduced fuel line, gasket, and O-ring > > life>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I am no chemist, but I think that acetone ruins rubber and neoprene because > it dissolves, not necessarily corrodes the rubber. Basically, that is correct. While smaller alcohols are corrosive, acetone is just a *really* good solvent. Even if it does not dissolve the solids, it may simply infiltrate them, softening and swelling them. Having spent the better part of an hour I could better have spent surfing ebay, I found no significant scientific content nor viable testing in LaPointe and associates-generated websites. It is all crap. -- C.R. Krieger <...> > I am no chemist, but I think that acetone ruins rubber and neoprene > because it dissolves, not necessarily corrodes the rubber. Wouldn't dissolving the rubber be corroding the rubber? Jeff Hint: Don't test this out with your condems before using them. In alt.autos.toyota Jeff <news@googlemail.com> wrote: > <...> > >> I am no chemist, but I think that acetone ruins rubber and neoprene >> because it dissolves, not necessarily corrodes the rubber. > > Wouldn't dissolving the rubber be corroding the rubber? Actually, we think he meant that by dissolving rubber, the rubber underwent a process by which it would dissolve, as opposed to undergoing a process by which it corrodes. cordially, as always, rm > In alt.autos.toyota Jeff <news@googlemail.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > rm Yup, that's what I meant! ;-) SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > so where else do they use Acetone by the way? > as an industrial cleaner? Yup. It does an amazing job cleaning spray equipment. > <<but at the definite cost of reduced fuel line, gasket, and O-ring > life>> > > I never knew Acetone was that corrosive, I know my wife uses them to > clean off nail polish, so where else do they use Acetone by the way? > as an industrial cleaner? Hardware stores. > <<but at the definite cost of reduced fuel line, gasket, and O-ring > life>> > > I never knew Acetone was that corrosive, I know my wife uses them to > clean off nail polish, Have you tried removing nail polish without using acetone? >> <<but at the definite cost of reduced fuel line, gasket, and O-ring >> life>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Have you tried removing nail polish without using acetone? Gee, I don't wear nail polish. Jeff > Scientific testing indicates that it works: > > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Acetone_as_a_Fuel_Additive There is no scientific evidence at this site, only hearsay, testimonials and wishful thinking of perpetual motion machines. Testimonials are not scientific evidence. Mr. Allan (the owner of the website) is clearly someone who does not understand physics. In fact, he seems a bit 'out there'.... http://www.sterlingdallan.com/resume/index.html SignatureDavid M (dmacchiarolo) http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled T/S 53 sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 2 days 7:16 > > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Acetone_as_a_Fuel_Additive > > There is no scientific evidence at this site, only hearsay, testimonials > and wishful thinking of perpetual motion machines. OK, so if you drive your Prius with one foot on the brake very lightly... > Mr. Allan (the owner of the website) is clearly someone who does not > understand physics. In fact, he seems a bit 'out there'.... > > http://www.sterlingdallan.com/resume/index.html Never mind, I found out where he got his knowledge of physics: http://www.allanstime.com/UnifiedFieldTheory/gravity.htm Apparently his father is as nutty as he is. Sounds impressive, but when you read it, it's pure nonsense. SignatureDavid M (dmacchiarolo) http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled T/S 53 sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 2 days 9:43 > > > Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, > > > and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Maybe you work for an oil company. Maybe you work for a company that makes rubber seals, which will need to be replaced soon after you starting putting that crap in your tank. or perhaps you work for an acetone manufacturer. See, I can play that game too. Now, back to the "science". BTW, MythBusters blew this one out of the water a long time ago. > > Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, > > and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air > > pollution and the high cost of gasoline should know about this. > > Right up there with the fake moon landing, big foot, and the lochness > monster. Hey now, Bigfoot wouldn't have been shown landing on the moon (in that movie studio) unless acetone were involved. The Loch Ness Monster turned the part down, as I recall. > > Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, > > and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air > > pollution and the high cost of gasoline should know about this. > > Right up there with the fake moon landing, big foot, and the lochness > monster. I was near a line at the UK auto show where people were lined up to pay 5 PGB ($8) for cow mangets to tie to their fuel line to align the molecules. A guy (SCCA Racer) trying to tie me into a scheme selling some sort of snake-oil to increase power and mileage. I gave it a good test As an occasional test engineer, car mechanic, and free-lance writer, I thoughb the investment would e interesting ($15), so design and ran a professional level - on the road - test. Change in acceeraion (both ways) :none Change in fuel use in every-day driving: none, taking into account acceptable error > > > Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, > > > and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Change in fuel use in every-day driving: none, taking into account > acceptable error Before you ask, the power test was a 10 MPH to 60 MPH in 3rd gear acceleration, going each direction to account for wind and slope. Always done at the same spot on the old 101 south of San Jose. Smooth, near level, and no traffic at the time I tested. > Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, > and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air > pollution and the high cost of gasoline should know about this. <...> > http://www.lubedev.com/articles/additive.htm I noticed that there were a total of ZERO references in that article. Nail polish remover is acetone. I really doubt that it makes much of a difference in gas mileage. Jeff >> Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, >> and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I really doubt that it makes much of a difference in gas mileage. Nobody's posted this link yet, so I will: <http://www.cartalk.com/content/columns//Archive/2006/January/08.html> SignatureTegger >>> Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, >>> and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Nobody's posted this link yet, so I will: > <http://www.cartalk.com/content/columns//Archive/2006/January/08.html> So you think old Tom and Ray of Car Talk have any clue about this? Let's see: They both went to MIT, one has a DBAand Tom's udnergrad degree is in chemical engineering. Gee, I guess they should know what they're talking about. And they're right about this one. Jeff > So you think old Tom and Ray of Car Talk have any clue about this? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Jeff Yup. Good Ole Tommy and Ray. Tommy's a PhD. >> So you think old Tom and Ray of Car Talk have any clue about this? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Yup. Good Ole Tommy and Ray. Tommy's a PhD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_Talk says it is a DBA. However, MIT says it's a Ph.D. Guess what? I will go with MIT and say, you're right, it's a Ph.D. http://alumweb.mit.edu/opendoor/200301/magliozzi.shtml They gave the MIT commencement address in 1999, too. I don't think they got honarary Ph.D.s. Jeff The basic limiting factor to how well any engine can run is the burn time of the fuel. The internal combustion engine burns the fuel inside the cylinder to get expansion thereby extracting power. That is one strock of the four stroke motor. Then the heated, expanding, still burning, not completelly burned gases and waste products are funnelled out thru the exhaust. All this takes place very rapidlly. At 2,500 rpm devide minute by four devide by 1,250 and get time of burn, work cycle. The answer is the external combustion engine. Also known as the steam engine. But the driving public will not give up rapid accelleration. disston > Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, and > costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air > pollution and the high cost of gasoline should know about this. This again? You try it and let us know how you make out. I gave the van I was going to try it in away, and the rest of my cars run too well to try Voodoo with... >> Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, and >> costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You try it and let us know how you make out. I gave the van I was going to > try it in away, and the rest of my cars run too well to try Voodoo with... This is soo funny. Years ago in another life time I remember reading long before I was born how some crank was advertising running on water and acetone. Henry Ford and Thomas Edison investigated the man's claims. What they found was detonation was so severe an engine would never last long on the stuff, and it was also highly corrosive to the fuel system and engine components. This just goes to show how long crack pots have been trying to push this sh.t as a fuel, or fuel additive. It didn't work back in the early 1900's any better than it works today. Whitelightning >>> Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, and >>> costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > early 1900's any better than it works today. > Whitelightning For you to get the type of increase they are advertising, a lot of unburned fuel would have to be leaving the engine. That's just not the case. Fuel is nearly completely burned. This reminds me of those tornado things advertised on TV. The ones that swirl the air and fuel together and work on every engine. I believe that people who use acetone and those tornado things get better mileage because they think they will and drive better, with slower acceleration, letting off the gas when approachign a stop light (instead of racing up to see who gets to stop first), etc. Any change in the fuel mileage is from the way people drive with this stuff. Jeff > This reminds me of those tornado things advertised on TV. The ones that > swirl the air and fuel together and work on every engine. Oh yeah! I'm going to put one of THOSE in the air stream, after the air filter, with NOTHING to stop one of those cheap looking blades from getting sucked into the intake plenum! It appears the kooks in the NGs are not only taking politics. Oil company and auto manufacture greed? Get real, if any oil company could advertise increased mileage by using THEIR brand, you can bet the farm they would be adding acetone. The introduction of ANY additive into the gasoline distribution system is strictly prohibited by the current environmental laws, precluding the addition of acetone at the refinery by the oil companies. As to the vehicle manufactures, why in the world would they NOT want their vehicles to get better mileage to meet CAFE regulations and reduce emissions? That would allow them to sell more of the higher profit vehicles that their customers really want to buy. As to oxidizers per se it seems to me, as with the case of nitrous oxide, one would be better off adding them to the air flow Does the term snake oil, ring a bell? ;) mike > Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, > and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the unburned portion of the fuel to gain added vaporization and > improved combustion efficiency. > Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, > and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air > pollution and the high cost of gasoline should know about this. 10- 15 cents an ounce is like $15 a gallon!! >> Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, >> and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air >> pollution and the high cost of gasoline should know about this. > >10- 15 cents an ounce is like $15 a gallon!! Hey retard, why haven't you answered my question regarding your belief that cars should have bumpers on the side? SignatureWe're all here because we're not all there. >>> Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, and >>> costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Hey retard, why haven't you answered my question regarding your belief > that cars should have bumpers on the side? Bumpers on the side? Good idea! If you look at the Prius and a lot of new European cars, the hoods are designed the way they are in order to inflict less damage on pedestrians when playing Death Race 2,0...er I mean, if a pedestrian steps out in front of you. I guess side bumpers are just the next step in protecting us from ourselves... > If you look at the Prius and a lot of new European cars, the hoods are > designed the way they are in order to inflict less damage on pedestrians > when playing Death Race 2,0...er I mean, if a pedestrian steps out in > front of you. I guess side bumpers are just the next step in protecting us > from ourselves... Or from trees we drift into >> If you look at the Prius and a lot of new European cars, the hoods are >> designed the way they are in order to inflict less damage on pedestrians [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Or from trees we drift into Ever driven a Porsche 911? On all other cars, you lift to get out of trouble. Do that in a 911 and you'll get up close and personal with a tree all right! >> On May 10, 2:44 am, Hachiroku ãƒãƒãƒã‚¯ <Tru...@AE86.gts> wrote: >>> If you look at the Prius and a lot of new European cars, the hoods are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >trouble. Do that in a 911 and you'll get up close and personal with a >tree all right! While lift-throttle oversteer is notorious on the 911, it's certainly not exclusive to it. I think it was Car&Driver which wrecked an MR-2 under test that way, for instance. Many cars will do it under the right conditions. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. ///snipped/// >>Ever driven a Porsche 911? On all other cars, you lift to get out of >>trouble. Do that in a 911 and you'll get up close and personal with a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > wrecked an MR-2 under test that way, for instance. Many cars will do > it under the right conditions. I can vouch for the fact that, lift-throttle steer, torque steer, or what ever you wish to call it, is not unique the the 911. The Lotus 47 (Lotus Europa in the U.S.) could literally be driven through curves (gentle ones I admit) simply by applying throttle or reducing throttle, never needing to move the steering wheel a bit. Of course, the engine placement may have been a factor also.... DaveD Dave and Trudy <dtdodson@acsalaska.net> wrote in article <4644500c@news.acsalaska.net>... > I can vouch for the fact that, lift-throttle steer, torque steer, or what > ever you wish to call it, is not unique the the 911. The Lotus 47 (Lotus > Europa in the U.S.) could literally be driven through curves (gentle ones I > admit) simply by applying throttle or reducing throttle, never needing to > move the steering wheel a bit. Now, that's absolutely amazing...... Without moving the steering wheel a bit, the car instinctively knew whether to oversteer to the right or left.......depending on the curve. Maybe you should contact some race teams and let them in on this secret? I'm ALWAYS amazed when bullshitters try to out-bullshit each other............. He was talking about Torque-steer. Something ill designed cars, or ones that have been wrecked have. SignatureSteve Barker > Now, that's absolutely amazing...... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'm ALWAYS amazed when bullshitters try to out-bullshit each > other............. > He was talking about Torque-steer. Something ill designed cars, or ones > that have been wrecked have. Actually, I wouldn't call the Lotus 47 an ill-designed car. Rather, it is a characteristic of mid-engined and rear-engined vehicles to differing degrees. DaveD >> Now, that's absolutely amazing...... >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> I'm ALWAYS amazed when bullshitters try to out-bullshit each >> other............. >> He was talking about Torque-steer. Something ill designed cars, or ones >> that have been wrecked have. > >Actually, I wouldn't call the Lotus 47 an ill-designed car. Rather, it is a >characteristic of mid-engined and rear-engined vehicles to differing >degrees. Ever tried to change the starter on one? Ill-designed seems an appropriate description to me. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." >>> He was talking about Torque-steer. Something ill designed cars, or ones >>> that have been wrecked have. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > description to me. > --scott Well, now that is a whole different story. Changed starters which was very interesting and rebuilt the rear axles, which was even a greater challenge. I had never run across what is basically a three piece (each side) axle...Not ill-designed but rather designed without considering that people would have to work on them outside of Chapman's shop in Leighton Buzzard. DaveD Steve Barker <ichasetrains@some.yahoo.com> wrote in article <nZudnRrpI8wPVtrbnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@giganews.com>... > He was talking about Torque-steer. Something ill designed cars, or ones > that have been wrecked have. Torque-steer is a front-wheel-drive characteristic..... When did they make the last FWD Lotus? > Steve Barker <ichasetrains@some.yahoo.com> wrote in article > <nZudnRrpI8wPVtrbnZ2dnUVZ_qarnZ2d@giganews.com>... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > When did they make the last FWD Lotus? If you don't know the answer to that why don't you just shut up and stop displaying your ignorance. Torque steer has been around far longer than the flourescence of front wheel drive. DaveD Dave and Trudy <dtdodson@acsalaska.net> wrote in article <46494720$1@news.acsalaska.net>... > > Torque-steer is a front-wheel-drive characteristic..... > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > displaying your ignorance. Torque steer has been around far longer than the > flourescence of front wheel drive. Please! Enlighten us as to how engine torque steers the front wheels on a RWD car...... > Dave and Trudy <dtdodson@acsalaska.net> wrote in article > <46494720$1@news.acsalaska.net>... Yall sound like a bunch of kindergarten kids in a sand box. Give it a rest, or at least keep it in your own sand box. Beginning to sound as bad as MTT has gotten. Whitelightning >>Torque-steer is a front-wheel-drive characteristic..... Um... no. Front-drives experience it far worse than rear-drives, but any car or truck can experience torque steer. Torque steer is, by definition, a steering input in response to change in engine torque. Rear-drive muscle cars have enough torque available to jump half a lane sideways if driven rashly. Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote in article <G5ydncvh7sFDudfbnZ2dnUVZ_hzinZ2d@texas.net>... > >>Torque-steer is a front-wheel-drive characteristic..... > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > cars have enough torque available to jump half a lane sideways if driven > rashly. RWD cars breaking the rear wheels loose is NOT torque steer...... Do yourself a favor and Google "torque steer" It has to do with torque MOVING steering components on cars with large scrub radii, and/or wrapping up half-shafts. > Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote in article > <G5ydncvh7sFDudfbnZ2dnUVZ_hzinZ2d@texas.net>... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > RWD cars breaking the rear wheels loose is NOT torque steer...... No, but any car seeing a steering input from added torque IS torque steer and rear-drive cars experience it. > Do yourself a favor and Google "torque steer" Screw google, get a real definition (stated in previous post). > It has to do with torque MOVING steering components on cars with large > scrub radii, In FWD cars, yes. In rear-drives the mechanism is frame flex and/or rear suspension mount/bushing/etc flex. >and/or wrapping up half-shafts. That's always been BS, just like the claim that unequal length halfshafts cause torque steer. I guess I can't argue with you...... You, obviously, know more about torque steer than ANY factory service bulletin I've ever seen..... I worked in MOPAR dealerships in the late '60s and early '70s muscle car era, but I NEVER read a FSB about torque steer until FWD came into popularity...... .....and, I've read quite a few of those. Now that MOPAR is back in U.S. hands, maybe you can go straighten out the engineers that wrote the torque steer service bulletins....... ......I know from experience working with them that you could not tell the Germans ANYTHING! Like you, they knew it all..... > I guess I can't argue with you...... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > era, but I NEVER read a FSB about torque steer until FWD came into > popularity...... I don't disagree. Its so subtle on rear-drive cars that MOST people never notice it... I was just being a bit pedantic and pointing out that it does, indeed, occur. > .....and, I've read quite a few of those. Yep, even a 105 horsepower 1978 Plymouth Horizon can have very violent torque steer, whereas a 425 horsepower (with the throttle half open) Hemi Roadrunner has it, but its hard to notice. Especially because the smile on the Roadrunner driver's face applies more pressure to his brain than the torque steer applies to his hands ;-) > ......I know from experience working with them that you could not tell the > Germans ANYTHING! > > Like you, they knew it all..... I could say "pot, kettle, black" here, but I'll just say that I agree that its primarily a front-drive problem. It just gets under my skin when people make blanket statements (rear-drive cars CAN'T have torque steer) that are flat-out wrong. The more correct statement is that torque steer is orders of magnitude worse on FWD cars. In alt.autos.toyota Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote: > I don't disagree. Its so subtle on rear-drive cars that MOST people > never notice it... I was just being a bit pedantic and pointing out that > it does, indeed, occur. We have searched the internet for "torque steer" and we conclude that it does not exist on RWD cars. Here is one quote:> * wrote: Note that the rear-wheel-drive vehicles do not suffer from the torque steer, since the engine is not connected to the steering gear unless it has all wheel steering. From this url: http://www.answers.com/topic/torque-steering 3) "Torque Steer": One of the most annoying habits of many powerful front-drive cars is that they don't go straight when you step on the accelerator! Instead, they pull to one side, requiring you to steer in the other direction to compensate, like on a damn boat. This "torque steer" usually happens because the drive shafts that connect the engine to the front wheels aren't the same length. http://www.slate.com/id/2081194/ And there is more good stuff here: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1174269 The gist of it seems to be that torque steer takes place because the same wheels are used for both steering and torque transmission. Thus the name, "torque steer". This being the case, it is impossible to have torque steer on a rear wheel car unless that car uses the rear wheels to steer. We have seen enough of your argumentation "style" to understand that you will not accept this, even though you have absolutely no evidence to support your position. And since you obviously do not even understand the underlying concept of torque steer we find it curious that you just don't lurk for awhile until you have a clue. Until then, bugger off. cordially, as always, rm > In alt.autos.toyota Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote: >> I don't disagree. Its so subtle on rear-drive cars that MOST people [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > We have searched the internet for "torque steer" and we conclude > that it does not exist on RWD cars. You have GOT to be kidding. SignatureIt's funny how quickly liberal atheists can develop a belief in hell when someone they hate dies. In alt.autos.toyota clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote: >> In alt.autos.toyota Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote: >>> I don't disagree. Its so subtle on rear-drive cars that MOST >>> people never notice it... I was just being a bit pedantic and >>> pointing out that it does, indeed, occur. >> We have searched the internet for "torque steer" and we conclude >> that it does not exist on RWD cars. > You have GOT to be kidding. Not at all. Whatever it is you numbskulls think you are feeling in your RWD cars, it is most certainly _NOT_ torque steer, by definition, but something else, if in fact, you really feel anything at all. And that, little one, is that. cordially, as always, rm > In alt.autos.toyota clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote: >>> In alt.autos.toyota Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > And that, little one, is that. Thanks so much, Uncle rm. But you forgot to tell us the definition of torque steer. SignatureIt's funny how quickly liberal atheists can develop a belief in hell when someone they hate dies. In alt.autos.toyota clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote: >> In alt.autos.toyota clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> In alt.autos.toyota Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Thanks so much, Uncle rm. But you forgot to tell us the definition of > torque steer. Perhaps it was in the part that you clipped away? You know, all those links? But perhaps there was a different definition in the links you provided? Oh, that's right. You didn't provide any links. Since you clipped away ours, you probably think that evens things out, right little one? cordially, as always, rm > In alt.autos.toyota clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote: >>> In alt.autos.toyota clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> Thanks so much, Uncle rm. But you forgot to tell us the definition of >> torque steer. Can't get much clearer than this "This "torque steer" usually happens because the drive shafts that connect the engine to the front wheels aren't the same length." The torque applied to the unequal length drive shafts causes one of them to wind up altering the timing of the power applied to each wheel and affecting the steering. Torque steer. Torque steer on the rear. I don't think so. You may get one wheel break traction and the back step out of line but that's oversteer. > Perhaps it was in the part that you clipped away? You know, all > those links? But perhaps there was a different definition in the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > rm > In alt.autos.toyota clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote: >>> In alt.autos.toyota clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > away ours, you probably think that evens things out, right little > one? I asked questions, gramps. One doesn't post links when asking questions, one posts links when answering them. All I know is that under some conditions (e.g. slippery pavement) it's not difficult at all to steer a RWD car by accelerating or decelerating. If that's not torque steer then you're playing semantic games. SignatureIt's funny how quickly liberal atheists can develop a belief in hell when someone they hate dies. > I asked questions, gramps. One doesn't post links when asking questions, > one posts links when answering them. > > All I know is that under some conditions (e.g. slippery pavement) it's > not difficult at all to steer a RWD car by accelerating or decelerating. > If that's not torque steer then you're playing semantic games. Semantic games???? Bud that is called not knowing how to drive on ice or snow, which has nothing to do with 'torque steer'. When you spin out, you are supposed to cut the steering wheel opposite to the turn to try and pull yourself back while letting 'off' the gas. When you let off the gas, you have to turn the steering the 'other' way to go straight again. That is called 'spinning out' recovery or if you do it on purpose, 'stunting' (which can cost your driver's license by the way), not torque steer. LOL! Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) >> I asked questions, gramps. One doesn't post links when asking questions, >> one posts links when answering them. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Bud that is called not knowing how to drive on ice or snow, which has > nothing to do with 'torque steer'. Purposely controlling a vehicle during a turn with the throttle is sometimes referred to as "throttle steer." The driver is taking advantage of the over and under-steering characteristics of the vehicle. The over or under-steering results from a combination of the vehicle's weight, weight distribution, pitch, roll, yaw, tire characteristics, vehicle speed, and suspension characteristics. Applying or backing off of the throttle has a bigger effect on the the vehicle's pitch and roll, which in turn affect the suspension, than it does on the torque generated by either FWD axles or a RWD driveshaft. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >>> I asked questions, gramps. One doesn't post links when asking questions, >>> one posts links when answering them. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > suspension, than it does on the torque generated by either FWD axles or a > RWD driveshaft. Only when you are on the race track is it called 'throttle steer'. If you are on the street, it is called 'stunting' according to several cops I met when I was young and umm, a little crazy.... They did believe me when I said I was just learning how my 'new to me' vehicle responds in the snow so I wasn't charged with the 'stunt'. :-) Mike >>>> I asked questions, gramps. One doesn't post links when asking >>>> questions, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Mike You should be in sales! <g> SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > All I know is that under some conditions (e.g. slippery pavement) it's > not difficult at all to steer a RWD car by accelerating or decelerating. > If that's not torque steer then you're playing semantic games. Sorry, I know we've been on the same side of the discussion up to this point, but on this argument you're dead wrong. There's a COMPLETELY different phenomenon going on when you use leading- or trailing-throttle oversteer or understeer to "steer" a rear-drive car through a corner, versus the phenomonology of torque steer. Torque steer is an instantaneous thing that happens due to stresses on the vehicle altering its suspension geometry OR due to asymmyetric thrust from the driving wheels, or an artificial direct steering force as in the case of a FWD car with a non-zero scrub radius and unequal traction. What you're describing is simple oversteer or understeer which can be modulated with the throttle. Oversteer or understeer can also occur in a completely non-powered vehicle like a soapbox racer (or a coasting car), too, so by definition it can't be torque related. >> All I know is that under some conditions (e.g. slippery pavement) it's >> not difficult at all to steer a RWD car by accelerating or decelerating. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > completely non-powered vehicle like a soapbox racer (or a coasting car), > too, so by definition it can't be torque related. Oversteer or understeer implies an attempt to steer, no? SignatureIt's funny how quickly liberal atheists can develop a belief in hell when someone they hate dies. >>> All I know is that under some conditions (e.g. slippery pavement) it's >>> not difficult at all to steer a RWD car by accelerating or decelerating. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Oversteer or understeer implies an attempt to steer, no? No. Oversteer or understeer are a result of suspension loading, which are a result of momentum, not torque. For example, you could have a car with rolling down a hill with curves, with the transmission in neutral or the engine off, and still experience oversteer or understeer, depending on how the suspension is set up and how the brakes are applied. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >>>> All I know is that under some conditions (e.g. slippery pavement) it's >>>> not difficult at all to steer a RWD car by accelerating or decelerating. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > engine off, and still experience oversteer or understeer, depending on how > the suspension is set up and how the brakes are applied. I'm lost. The car would tend to move in a straight line regardless of the curves in the road, unless and until it hit objects. I don't see oversteer or understeer there. SignatureIt's funny how quickly liberal atheists can develop a belief in hell when someone they hate dies. >>>>> All I know is that under some conditions (e.g. slippery pavement) it's >>>>> not difficult at all to steer a RWD car by accelerating or [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > the curves in the road, unless and until it hit objects. I don't see > oversteer or understeer there. "Oversteer" refers to a car's (or other vehicle) tendency to turn (yaw) more sharply during a turn because the front tires maintain traction longer than the rear tires. A car that oversteers has more of a tendency to spin if all traction is lost. "Understeer" refers to a car's tendency to make a wider turn during a turn because the front tires start to lose traction before the rear tires. A car that understeers has more of a tendency to slide in the original direction of travel at the time that traction is lost. Most passenger cars have a tendency to understeer to make them easier to handle. A car may have a tendency to oversteer or understeer, but generally will not have a tendency to do both. In other words, they are opposite characteristics of the car. There are a lot of factors that determine which characteristic a car has, including the characteristics of the springs, tires, suspension geometry, and vehicle's weight distribution. In my example of the unpowered car rolling down a hill, the assumption was that there is a driver controlling the steering wheel and brakes, and the driver is steering through curves in the road. Torque is not a factor because the engine is not running and so is not producing any torque. If the car's tendency is to oversteer, it will still oversteer while going through curves, and if the car's tendency it so understeer, it will still understeer while going through curves. On a flat road, when the driver is using the car's tendency to oversteer or understeer by applying or backing off the throttle, the driver is controlling the car's attitude (roll, pitch, and yaw), and shifting the car's weight, which in turn load or unload different corners of the suspension. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > "clifto" <clifto@gmail.com> wrote... >> I'm lost. The car would tend to move in a straight line regardless of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that there is a driver controlling the steering wheel and brakes, and the > driver is steering through curves in the road. And that's what I missed, by visualizing an entirely different kind of "hill with curves" than you were visualizing. And now I see what you were saying, and the source of any disagreement we had is in the different mental pictures we had of what we thought we were discussing. :) SignatureIt's funny how quickly liberal atheists can develop a belief in hell when someone they hate dies. >> "clifto" <clifto@gmail.com> wrote... >>> I'm lost. The car would tend to move in a straight line regardless of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > saying, and the source of any disagreement we had is in the different > mental pictures we had of what we thought we were discussing. :) I gathered from your response that my initial description was a little lacking ;-) SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > In alt.autos.toyota clifto <clifto@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > rm I searched the internet and concluded YOU don't exist. In alt.autos.toyota Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote: > I searched the internet and concluded YOU don't exist. And this means that you are talking to yourself? cordially, as always, rm > In alt.autos.toyota Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > rm Not only is he therefore talking to himself, he is arguing with himself and losing the argument ;-) SignatureI. Care Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-} rm@biteme.org wrote in article <h943i.1783$865.454@fe05.news.easynews.com>... > In alt.autos.toyota Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > rm One thing the "RWD/Torque Steer" proponents fail to understand is that driveshaft torque in most RWD cars tends to *lift* the right rear wheel - not move it forward or backward. Engine torque is trying to twist the rear axle on the driveshaft axis, NOT move it forward or backward which would induce true torque steer. Worn components allowing the raer axle to move forward/backward do not constitute "torque steer." Thank you, rm. > rm@biteme.org wrote in article > <h943i.1783$865.454@fe05.news.easynews.com>... [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > driveshaft torque in most RWD cars tends to *lift* the right rear wheel - > not move it forward or backward. You know, there are people out there who have spent more time fine-tuning rear suspension systems in a week than you have in your whole LIFE. That goes for me too, but I've obviously done just a little more thinking about it than you. Open your mind for a while, howbout? Follow me through this, I'm going to do math to prove the point: Yes, on a solid axle car, the torque of the engine transmitted through the driveshaft DOES tend to lift the right rear wheel and plant the left rear wheel. But it sure as hell doesn't stop there.. The torque of the engine combined with the forward thrust generated by the wheels on the pavement (on either solid or independent rear suspension) does a myriad of other things too. Things like, oh, slightly twist the frame, try to rotate the axle housing violently opposite of the direction the wheels turn, compress some rear suspension bushings, stretch other rear suspension bushings, and subtly (or not so subtly, depending on the vehicle) alter the rear suspension's basic geometry.... ALL of which can lead to an undesirable DIRECTIONAL input that the driver must correct.... AKA, "torque steer." > Engine torque is trying to twist the rear axle on the driveshaft axis, NOT > move it forward or backward which would induce true torque steer. See above, and I can't believe that even you are SO hard-headed that you can't see the obvious. Let's work out an example: Say the engine produces 400 ft-lb of torque. Multiply that by 3.5 (let's say that's the first-gear ratio in the transmission) and you have a good approximation of the left-right torque on the rear axle housing or differential-to-chassis attachment in an IRS vehicle (1400 ft-lb so far, stay with me). Now multiply THAT number by roughly 3.25 (a middle-of-the-road rear axle ratio) and you have the torque that is trying to flip the rear axle over on its back, which must be resisted by the rear suspension links (solid axle) or the chassis itself (IRS) (4550 ft-lb). Divide *that* by the tire radius in feet, and you have the number of POUNDS OF THRUST that the rear suspension is absorbing and transmitting to the chassis (lets assume a 30-inch diameter tire, so the radius is 15" or 1.25 feet, so the forward thrust is 3640 pounds). Contrary to your nonsensical claim that torque is "not moving the the axle forward or backward," I'll think you will argree that roughly 3400 pounds of thrust quite a huge force acting on the rear suspension components in the fore-aft direction EVEN in the case of independent rear suspension, and a lot more forces will be acting on a solid axle. > Worn components allowing the raer axle to move forward/backward do not > constitute "torque steer." None of the components have to be worn, old, under-designed, or out of spec to flex slightly. In alt.autos.toyota Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote: > Yes, on a solid axle car, the torque of the engine transmitted through > the driveshaft DOES tend to lift the right rear wheel and plant the left [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > lead to an undesirable DIRECTIONAL input that the driver must > correct.... AKA, "torque steer." The only way that there could be an undesirable DIRECTIONAL input from the rear axel is if the rear wheels were caused to rotate at a different rate. Of course that notion is laughable on most RWD cars. >> Engine torque is trying to twist the rear axle on the driveshaft >> axis, NOT move it forward or backward which would induce true >> torque steer. > See above, and I can't believe that even you are SO hard-headed that you > can't see the obvious. Let's work out an example: Say the engine [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > components in the fore-aft direction EVEN in the case of independent > rear suspension, and a lot more forces will be acting on a solid axle. Yes, but how does any of your "math" affect the steering of the car? What you are describing is the amount of power that reaches the road and the losses entailed on the way there. But this has nothing to do with the way the car steers. You used the words incorrectly, you were corrected, and now your ego won't allow you to let it go. You are making a fool of yourself. Time to change your usenet name, and move on. cordially, as always, rm > The only way that there could be an undesirable DIRECTIONAL input > from the rear axel is if the rear wheels were caused to rotate at a > different rate. Of course that notion is laughable on most RWD > cars. Uh, no. If you change the toe, camber, or caster of the rear wheels unequally (which can happen because of the combination of forces I've proved out), you get a steering input at the back end of the car, just like you would at the front. <handing shovel back to you so you can bury yourself deeper....> Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote in article <Ls6dnex6QZaIcNDbnZ2dnUVZ_rSjnZ2d@texas.net>... > You know, there are people out there who have spent more time > fine-tuning rear suspension systems in a week than you have in your > whole LIFE. That goes for me too, but I've obviously done just a little > more thinking about it than you. I earn my living building and setting up oval-track cars. I work with front and rear suspension geometry on a dailt basis. While there are others - such as Nextel Cup Specialists - who might work MORE with suspension geometry than I do, I would humbly suggest that I work with it MUCH MORE THAN YOU! >Open your mind for a while, howbout? There is a major difference between an "open mind" and a "hole in your head." > Follow me through this, I'm going to do math to prove the point: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > lead to an undesirable DIRECTIONAL input that the driver must > correct.... AKA, "torque steer." That is NOT "torque steer" That is suspension movement. There is also "roll steer" which has to do with suspension movement - and is actually what is happening when the rear axle rolls about the driveshaft axis as you describe it above. > > Engine torque is trying to twist the rear axle on the driveshaft axis, NOT > > move it forward or backward which would induce true torque steer. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > components in the fore-aft direction EVEN in the case of independent > rear suspension, and a lot more forces will be acting on a solid axle. The accuracy of your math notwithstanding, it has become quite apparent that you do not understand everything you think you know about it. > That is NOT "torque steer" That is suspension movement. And when undesirable suspension movment is caused by engine torque, the effect is.... Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? TORQUE STEER! Give it up, already. Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote in article <lPCdnXWt5eq709PbnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@texas.net>... > > That is NOT "torque steer" That is suspension movement. > > And when undesirable suspension movment is caused by engine torque, the > effect is.... Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? > > TORQUE STEER! I guess when you don't even understand the concept of torque, it's gonna' be hard for you to understand anything more complicated. Engine torque ONLY acts on a rear axle by applying a twisting force along the driveshaft plane. Engine torque is NOT moving the rear axle forward and backward. Several other issues - including suspension problems - come into play here. If a rear axle moves under acceleration, it REALLY doesn't matter what size engine the car has. It has more to do with suspension. In FWD, however, more powerful engines create more torque steer. Do some of your convoluted math - using the car's weight, tire's traction, etc, and you will find that ANY engine will develop the same result - independent of its torque capabilities. Also, if you attribute the axle moving forward to engine torque, what do you attribute the same axle moving rearward to? > Give it up, already. Got that pulldown rig all "THOUGHT OUT" yet? > Engine torque ONLY acts on a rear axle by applying a twisting force along > the driveshaft plane. > > Engine torque is NOT moving the rear axle forward and backward. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? So "engine torque" applies to the torque that you measure at the driveshaft, but not the torque you measure at an axle? Forgive my confusion, but exactly where DOES the torque that one can measure at the driving wheels (rear or front) come from??? And when torque is applied to a rear (or front) wheel that is in direct contact with the ground, it DIRECTLY results in a force on the rear (or front) suspension. If this were not true, the car wouldn't move forward. What "understanding of torque" did I miss in my education? What "understanding of torque" allows the engine to move the vehicle without creating any force on the suspension connected to the driving wheels??? > Several other issues - including suspension problems - come into play here. Suspension problems and suspension characteristics, yes I agree. It is also the suspension characteristics of a front-drive car that cause it to experience torque steer, is it not? > If a rear axle moves under acceleration, it REALLY doesn't matter what size > engine the car has. It has more to do with suspension. More torque translates directly to more suspension deflection, just like more FWD torque acting through a non-zero scrub radius causes more FWD torque steer. Look if you want to restrict the definition of what you call torque steer to ONLY a FWD phenomenon, and ONLY that portion of it that directly causes a force to act on the steering linkage, be my guest. That's just a difference in definition, and that's no big deal. But do you REALLY deny that engine torque induced movement of the rear axle (or IRS components) can alter the thrust axis and thus affect the direction of travel of the vehicle though? That's more than a difference of definition, its a fundamental engineering disagreement. > > Engine torque ONLY acts on a rear axle by applying a twisting force along > > the driveshaft plane. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > of travel of the vehicle though? That's more than a difference of > definition, its a fundamental engineering disagreement. Please post a cite to a description of a) a vehicle whose RWD assembly is asymmetrical and b) a road test where said asymmetry results in a deviation of the vehicle from a straight-ahead path under acceleration. If any such examples exist, they're so rare as to be inconsequential. In your typical live-axle, RWD vehicle, the axles to each wheel are equal in length and therefore while there are certainly forces transmitted during acceleration, the only one that is not perfectly symmetrical side to side is the twist imparted by the driveshaft. However, that still does not generally unbalance a car and make it tend to deviate from a straight ahead path. nate >>>Engine torque ONLY acts on a rear axle by applying a twisting force along >>>the driveshaft plane. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > acceleration. If any such examples exist, they're so rare as to be > inconsequential. Any assymetry is INDUCED by the forces acting on the assembly- eg, one wheel has more traction than the other and therefore (assuming a limited-slip differential) applies more force to that side's suspension linkage. Exactly the same way a front-drive experiences torque-steer- one wheel has more traction than the other and exerts a different force on the suspension and steering components on its side of the car. > In your typical live-axle, RWD vehicle, the axles to each wheel are > equal in length and therefore while there are certainly forces > transmitted during acceleration, Axle shaft length doesn't affect the force transmitted to the wheels at all. >>>>Engine torque ONLY acts on a rear axle by applying a twisting force >>>>along [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > limited-slip differential) applies more force to that side's suspension > linkage. A limited slip differential equalizes traction. With an open differential, power will tend to go to the wheel with the least traction. > Exactly the same way a front-drive experiences torque-steer- one wheel has > more traction than the other and exerts a different force on the > suspension and steering components on its side of the car. Torque steer in a FWD vehicle is not the result of differences in traction from one side to the other. A spinning object produces a force that is perpendicular to the direction of rotation. If you think back to high school science class where you hold the the axles of a bicycle wheel, spin the wheel, and exert some force in a particular direction on the axle, the whole thing wants to go in a different direction, like a gyroscope. On a FWD vehicle, the wheels move inwards and outwards in addition to the spinning motion, so the torque generated by the drivetrain tends to move the wheels, resulting in what is commonly referred to as "torque steer." In a vehicle with very prominent torque steer, when accelerating in a straight line, torque steer's effect can actually exert enough force on the tie rod ends to change the direction of travel. Because many FWD vehicles have transversely mounted engines, the effect of the torque can be magnified. In a RWD vehicle, the rear driven wheels are generally fixed, so torque generated at the wheel has no steering mechanism to exert force on. Yes, suspension bushings can compress, and the chassis can flex, but no turning force is exerted on the tie rod ends, and any effect of the torque on steering is so insignificant that it is generally considered to be non-existent. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > In a RWD vehicle, the rear driven wheels are generally fixed, so torque > generated at the wheel has no steering mechanism to exert force on. Yes, > suspension bushings can compress, and the chassis can flex, but no turning > force is exerted on the tie rod ends, and any effect of the torque on > steering is so insignificant that it is generally considered to be > non-existent. Even if a RWD vehicle suffered from something akin to torque steer, it would be irrelevant because the very definition of torque steer includes the fact that it only happens on a FWD powertrain. This is not to say that a rwd car can't experience a similar phenomenon (my TA always fishtails a certain way at the dragstrip during the burnout) but you can't call it torque steer because it's NOT a fwd car. Calling an orange a blueberry doesn't make it true. Although, considering how little torque most fwd cars have... torque steer on a rwd car sounds cool... but lame on a fwd car. ;) Ray 01 Trans Am Ram Air RWD 02 Subaru Legacy AWD 90 K1500 4wd 90 Beretta fwd (wife's car.) >> In a RWD vehicle, the rear driven wheels are generally fixed, so torque >> generated at the wheel has no steering mechanism to exert force on. Yes, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > would be irrelevant because the very definition of torque steer includes > the fact that it only happens on a FWD powertrain. I agree, I was merely trying to explain why that is the case. To play devil's advocate, if a RWD vehicle had steerable rear wheels, I wonder if it would experience torque steer? I don't know the definitive answer, but my guess is yes. > This is not to say that a rwd car can't experience a similar phenomenon > (my TA always fishtails a certain way at the dragstrip during the burnout) > but you can't call it torque steer because it's NOT a fwd car. Calling an > orange a blueberry doesn't make it true. Yup, differential traction is not torque steer ;-) > Although, considering how little torque most fwd cars have... torque steer > on a rwd car sounds cool... but lame on a fwd car. ;) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 90 K1500 4wd > 90 Beretta fwd (wife's car.) You must have a very understanding wife if you get 3 sets of wheels, including 2 newer ones, and she gets the 17 year old car! :-) SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) >> Ray >> 01 Trans Am Ram Air RWD [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You must have a very understanding wife if you get 3 sets of wheels, > including 2 newer ones, and she gets the 17 year old car! :-) lol. She's quite understanding.. but that's not quite how it goes. The Ram Air we bought together. Only new car I've ever bought. The Subaru we bought in the fall because we have two kids now. The pickup is the father-in-law's old one we got for a song. The Beretta is the car that just won't die and now it's not worth selling, so it's my winter commuter. She's a keeper - she bought me nitrous for a wedding anniversary present. :) >>> Ray >>> 01 Trans Am Ram Air RWD [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > She's a keeper - she bought me nitrous for a wedding anniversary present. > :) Definitely a keeper! Make sure she stays happy! SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > A limited slip differential equalizes traction. Not sure what that means. A limited slip differential tries to minimize the difference in rotational speed between the two wheels (the extreme being a locker which makes the difference zero). One wheel can have zero traction, but the other will still move the vehicle, which means that the one with traction puts more force on the suspension components than the one with zero traction. >>Exactly the same way a front-drive experiences torque-steer- one wheel has >>more traction than the other and exerts a different force on the >>suspension and steering components on its side of the car. > > Torque steer in a FWD vehicle is not the result of differences in traction > from one side to the other. Yes, it is. A spinning object produces a force that is > perpendicular to the direction of rotation. If you think back to high > school science class where you hold the the axles of a bicycle wheel, spin [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > On a FWD vehicle, the wheels move inwards and outwards in addition to the > spinning motion, Of course there's a gyroscopic force present, but its 3rd or 4th order compared with things like the force acting on a non-zero scrub radius steering system! No driver is ever actually going to FEEL the effect of the gyro force, and even if they did it would be a tendency to RESIST a driver's steering inputs, not CREATE its own steering inputs. The fact that a spinning mass resists being turned is why gyros work at all, so that force is going to try to hold the wheels in a fixed orientation. >> A limited slip differential equalizes traction. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > one with traction puts more force on the suspension components than the > one with zero traction. Yup, my terminology was incorrect. >>>Exactly the same way a front-drive experiences torque-steer- one wheel >>>has more traction than the other and exerts a different force on the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > that a spinning mass resists being turned is why gyros work at all, so > that force is going to try to hold the wheels in a fixed orientation. I think a major difficulty in this discussion is that there is probably no definitive definition of "torque steer" published by a universally accepted authority like the SAE. I agree that differences in traction can cause a vehicle to change its direction of travel, but I do not know whether or not that this is also considered to be torque steer or not. SignatureRay O (correct punctuation to reply) > I think a major difficulty in this discussion is that there is probably no > definitive definition of "torque steer" published by a universally accepted > authority like the SAE. After having been whaled on by a number of people because I adopt a fairly broad definition (directional change as a result of engine torque) as opposed to a narrow definition (a force acting directly on the steering linkage due to a non-zero scrub radius and unequal traction on a front-drive car), all I can say is "I agree." :-) I agree that differences in traction can cause a > vehicle to change its direction of travel, but I do not know whether or not > that this is also considered to be torque steer or not. Actually I think its one case that is almost universally called torque steer. When a car has a non-zero scrub radius, the force the driven front wheel applies to the pavement results in an equal force forward on the steering knuckle, and the non-zero scrub radius turns that into a torque on the steering knuckle, countered by the tie-rods and steering rack or sector gear. So long as both front wheels have equal traction, the equal and opposite forces in each tie rod act aginst each other through the rack or center link and there's no net force on the steering wheel. But when one wheel loses traction, its force disappears and the other wheel's force tries to rotate the steering wheel. > > I think a major difficulty in this discussion is that there is probably no > > definitive definition of "torque steer" published by a universally accepted [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > wheel. But when one wheel loses traction, its force disappears and the > other wheel's force tries to rotate the steering wheel. Those of us who have experoenced a broken motor-mount can confirm thatthere is a force at the engine tending to lift one side of the car. When the motormunt let go in my '64GT. it opened the throttle fully, which was fun riding out until the engine got up to a speed where the weigfht on one side of the enghine exceeded the torque on that side, and it flopped down. It hasn't happened to me in about 40 years,but it sure is a blast! Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote in article <Ls6dnex6QZaIcNDbnZ2dnUVZ_rSjnZ2d@texas.net>... > You know, there are people out there who have spent more time > fine-tuning rear suspension systems in a week than you have in your > whole LIFE. That goes for me too, but I've obviously done just a little > more thinking about it than you. While you've been busy erroneously convincing yourself that you are actually "....doing a little more thinking......" than I have been, I've been busy building a chassis pulldown rig which will allow me to ascertain within thousandths of an inch exactly how much suspension is moving in roll, in which direction(s) it is moving, and how to adjust it to achieve the desired final profile through the turns. I have built a tire dynamometer which allows me to determine the exact spring rate of different tires at different inflation pressures, and different numbers of laps, and I'm developing a scaled down tire roller similar to the Calspan rig in Buffalo, NY for even more complex testing. I also built a leaf spring rater - since there is only one company that I know of that builds them, and they cost thousands. I WORK with - NOT "THINK about working with" - a shock absorber dynamometer, coil spring rater, bump-steer guage, wheel scales, front-end alignment guages and several different precision measuring tools and instruments on a near-daily basis. I also "string" several oval-track chassis each week. I know EXACTLY how much a standard suspension bushing and a polyurethane bushing moves under compressions of varying pressures. I've MEASURED it on my chassis jig! I also know EXACTLY how much flex there is in various suspension components....I've MEASURED it on my chassis jig! Several times each year, I am approached by Street Rodders to "refine" - more accurately, CORRECT - their suspension problems. When you have come to understand how each of these tools/machines functions, and what chassis knowledge can be gained from their use, ONLY THEN will YOU be on a level to intelligently discuss chassis geometry with ME. I think you THINK too much, and DO too little............ Let me know when you have OUTDONE me.............. >Dave and Trudy <dtdodson@acsalaska.net> wrote in article ><4644500c@news.acsalaska.net>... [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >I'm ALWAYS amazed when bullshitters try to out-bullshit each >other............. never undestimate human stupidity. ///Ignoramus trash snipped/// >>Dave and Trudy <dtdodson@acsalaska.net> wrote in article >><4644500c@news.acsalaska.net>... >>> > never undestimate human stupidity. Definitely wouldn't, especially not in your case. DaveD >///Ignoramus trash snipped/// >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >DaveD i wondered when the resident non compos mentas would blather in. welcome to my kf. >>///Ignoramus trash snipped/// >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > i wondered when the resident non compos mentas would blather > in. welcome to my kf. Actually the phrase is "non compos mentis" and I would much rather be in your kf than have your ignorant mewling take up my bandwidth. Plonk! DaveD > Dave and Trudy <dtdodson@acsalaska.net> wrote in article > <4644500c@news.acsalaska.net>... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > whether > to oversteer to the right or left.......depending on the curve. > Maybe you should contact some race teams and let them in on this secret? Sorry, dipstick, but the racing people have known about this for years. Which cow pasture have you been living in? > I'm ALWAYS amazed when bullshitters try to out-bullshit each > other............. I'm amazed when know-nothings try to calls bullshit on a subject about which they are totally ignorant... DaveD Dave and Trudy <dtdodson@acsalaska.net> wrote in article <464829ed@news.acsalaska.net>... > Sorry, dipstick, but the racing people have known about this for years. > Which cow pasture have you been living in? I've been busy building oval-track cars for the last 40+ years, and I currently specialize in shock absorber dynamometer and chassis setup consultation work...... .....so I'm REALLY too busy to keep up on the lastest bullshit aspect of Loti, "Jag-you-er", and "Por-r-r-sha" street-driving, "Formula None" wannabes. Now, there is an angle called roll-steer that can set a car up for over- or understeer, but even the best race car driver MUST input something into the steering wheel to make the car roll one way or the other in order to put this geometry into play..... .......but the post to which I was responding suggested that no steering input, whatsoever, ( ".....never needing to move the steering wheel a bit.") was needed to negotiate a turn - and didn't indicate how the car was able to instinctively oversteer in the correct direction for any particular turn....... IOW - overexuberant bullshit! > I'm amazed when know-nothings try to calls bullshit on a subject about which > they are totally ignorant... Suggesting that a RWD car has "torque-steer" exhibits a large amount of ignorance......not to mention pure, unadulterated bullshit. Of course, living in the heart of NASCAR/USAC/SCCA country - as you do - makes you an automatic expert on everything that is happening in racing. What's your racing season up there, July 4th? > Dave and Trudy <dtdodson@acsalaska.net> wrote in article > <464829ed@news.acsalaska.net>... [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > What's your racing season up there, July 4th? No ignoramus. Just personal experience in driving where cars turn left and right instead of running in a big circle. I would suggest that you need another 40 or 50 years of experience with your "awful track" go nowhere cars.... DaveD Dave and Trudy <dtdodson@acsalaska.net> wrote in article <464947f5$1@news.acsalaska.net>... > > Dave and Trudy <dtdodson@acsalaska.net> wrote in article > > <464829ed@news.acsalaska.net>... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > or > > understeer, but even the best race car driver MUST input something into > > the > > steering wheel to make the car roll one way or the other in order to put [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > DaveD Yup! When you run out of rational counter-statements, start the insults.............. > Dave and Trudy <dtdodson@acsalaska.net> wrote in article > <4644500c@news.acsalaska.net>... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > I'm ALWAYS amazed when bullshitters try to out-bullshit each > other. And I'm always amazed when somebody attempts to refute a claim that was never made. Driving _through_ curves is not the same as entering a curve. "Dave and Trudy" do not seem to be claiming that "they" can _enter_ a curve with the throttle, but that they can control the car _in_ the curve with throttle. If you can't do the same, you probably shouldn't post on the subject. Jack Jack <dg303@sbcglobal.net> wrote in article <wdZ1i.4420$UU.2755@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>... > > Dave and Trudy <dtdodson@acsalaska.net> wrote in article > > <4644500c@news.acsalaska.net>... [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > curve with the throttle, but that they can control the car _in_ the > curve with throttle. That's not the way their original post (quoted above) reads. Nothing is mentioned about entry, exit, increasing/decreasing radius, or steady state cornering, so one can only guess that it is ALL included. They do not say, "Once we are set up for the turn, we can control things with the throttle....." They say ".......*never* needing to move the steering wheel a bit." which reads as, NEVER needing to move the wheel a bit to enter, exit or drive through the turn. NEVER NEEDING TO MOVE THE WHEEL A BIT! Not to enter.... Not to exit..... Not to follow increasing/decreasing/constant turn radius..... > If you can't do the same, you probably > shouldn't post on the subject. Oh, yeah! THAT challenges my manhood............. Let me know when you can do a good chassis setup - including all front and rear geometries....... and adjust it for track conditions and driver preferences as necessary....... .............or dyno some shocks to determine which one will give the desired change in corner entry/exit......using the principles of Instantaneous, Dynamic Diagonal, of course. If you cannot do that, maybe YOU shouldn't post, either! >>> Dave and Trudy <dtdodson@acsalaska.net> wrote in article >>> <4644500c@news.acsalaska.net>... >>>> The Lotus 47 (Lotus Europa in the U.S.) could literally >>>> be driven through curves (gentle ones I admit) simply by >>>> applying throttle or reducing throttle, never needing to >>>> move the steering wheel a bit. > NEVER NEEDING TO MOVE THE WHEEL A BIT! *, if you insist on misreading it, go ahead--nobody can stop you. That happens a lot on USENET. You had a choice, and you chose to be belligerent instead of agreeable. I can appreciate that. Have a nice day. Jack >>>> Dave and Trudy <dtdodson@acsalaska.net> wrote in article >>>> <4644500c@news.acsalaska.net>... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >That happens a lot on USENET. You had a choice, and you chose to be >belligerent instead of agreeable. I can appreciate that. What the OP said is not impossible, though it requires some help from the road designer as well as the car. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > Jack <dg303@sbcglobal.net> wrote in article > <wdZ1i.4420$UU.2755@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net>... [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > If you cannot do that, maybe YOU shouldn't post, either! You need to go back and read the ENTIRE post. Operative words driving THROUGH gentle curves. I didn't mention entering or exiting the curve because I thought that most of the denizens here would understand what I meant. Obviously I was correct. Most did understand only the few bozos here did not. DaveD >>>> Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, >>>> and [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > us > from ourselves... ... and here I was thinking that the hoods were designed to minimize wind resistance.... :-) Tomes This legend / scam / myth shows up all the time. It is bogus. http://neubranderinc.com/blog/2007/01/03/acetone-in-gasoline-busted/ http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/05/exploding_trousers_great_gas_conspiracy.html+ http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Acetone_as_a_Fuel_Additive The EPA has a program to test gas saving devices. They have never tested pure acetone, but they have tested additives that include accetone. None were effective in increasing fuel economy. Ed > Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, > and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Major Snip > above was excerpted from: > > http://www.lubedev.com/articles/additive.htm Cripes - where is the world famous 200 MPG Fish carburetor now that we need it? Marv I am always amazed at the cynics out in the real world. I fortuitously came across a bunch of acetone articles and did a bit more reading. Hell, I went out to my wife's beauty supplier and bought a gallon of pure Acetone, $10 or so, and added it to my tank. (I used about 3 oz per 10 gals.) After two tank fulls - I used just the first click on the pump each time. My auto is a 91 Ply Acclaim 3.0. My miles per gal went from about 24-25 (regular driving, non-highway with air on most of the time) to 31.5 miles per gallon. Whether you believe this or not, I don't care. I have absolutely nothing to sell or any conflict of interest. It worked for me. What suppose to happen is it, the acetone, helps the vaporization of the gas in the chamber for a more efficient burn and no excess gas getting pissed out and wasting your money. Guys/ and Gals/ it's your car and money. Hank - any question hakone@ptd.net -- Please if you did not try this and only want and argument, save it for your wife or husband or lover. >Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, >and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >http://www.lubedev.com/articles/additive.htm > After two tank fulls - I used just the first click on the pump each > time. My auto is a 91 Ply Acclaim 3.0. My miles per gal went from > about 24-25 (regular driving, non-highway with air on most of the > time) to 31.5 miles per gallon. And when your fuel pump melts, etc. don't come crying back here. There is one in every crowd. You are the one here. How is the fuel pump going to melt? If gasoline doesn't do it how can acetone do it. Research what you say. And like I said before argue with someone else. In fact try reading and testing acetone. I know you did not just from your ignorant statement. >> After two tank fulls - I used just the first click on the pump each >> time. My auto is a 91 Ply Acclaim 3.0. My miles per gal went from >> about 24-25 (regular driving, non-highway with air on most of the >> time) to 31.5 miles per gallon. > >And when your fuel pump melts, etc. don't come crying back here. > There is one in every crowd. You are the one here. > > How is the fuel pump going to melt? If gasoline doesn't do it how can > acetone do it. Research what you say. And like I said before argue > with someone else. In fact try reading and testing acetone. I know > you did not just from your ignorant statement. All I know is that if it did work, it would already be in gasoline. I also know that Shell had some "mystery" additive that DID dissolve fuel pumps in some Chrysler cars. I've seen acetone eat stuff that gasoline wouldn't bother at all. The gas companies are in business to sell gas not give you a bargain. Just like everyone believes ethanol is going to be great, yea right -- watch what happens when it's in your car and at the pumps. Get your wallet out... What stuff are you talking about? Gasoline or acetone will eat through paper or regular plastic cups, etc. ... >> There is one in every crowd. You are the one here. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >I've seen acetone eat stuff that gasoline wouldn't bother at all. > The gas companies are in business to sell gas not give you a bargain. > Just like everyone believes ethanol is going to be great, yea right -- [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What stuff are you talking about? Gasoline or acetone will eat > through paper or regular plastic cups, etc. http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2004/07/21/shellgas_040721.html > The gas companies are in business to sell gas not give you a bargain. > Just like everyone believes ethanol is going to be great, yea right -- [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > What stuff are you talking about? Gasoline or acetone will eat > through paper or regular plastic cups, etc. http://www.shell.ca/home/content/ca-en/news_and_library/press_releases/2004/janu ary7_additive.html http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2005/03/17/6900069_Acetone/ >> The gas companies are in business to sell gas not give you a bargain. >> Just like everyone believes ethanol is going to be great, yea right -- [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >http://www.shell.ca/home/content/ca-en/news_and_library/press_releases/2004/janu ary7_additive.html > The gas companies are in business to sell gas not give you a bargain. What are the acetone companies in business for? maybe they're all too duuuuuuumb to keep with you, right? Thanks for crossposting! As a former repair man and robot builder, I used acetone as a solvent to melt plastics into a paste for filling or welding cracks when forming robot cover pieces and as a glue to hold cracks together. Upright Hoover Vacuum cleaner cases can be glued or welded back together with a wipe of acetone on the crack for one. It will melt and fuse that hard plastic stuff. I don't know for sure about fuel pump parts, but.... As well the TV show Mythbusters tested it for mileage and got a serious drop if I remember right. Your results could easily be from a carboned up engine and gunked up fuel system getting super clean so the mileage goes back to 'normal' before anything melts.... Just my $0.02, Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's - Gone to the rust pile... Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) > There is one in every crowd. You are the one here. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>> time) to 31.5 miles per gallon. >> And when your fuel pump melts, etc. don't come crying back here. Like I said before acetone will melt certain plastics. (Thanks for the acetone tips, never thought of doing that with my cars, etc.) I have a gallon in my garage for a long time (wife get it at the beauty supply) and it doesn't bother it. It's a good cleaner and nail polish remover. Myth buster must be drinking the stuff because they are in error or maybe (hope not) not doing there homework. They have an interesting show but it's full of holes. >As a former repair man and robot builder, I used acetone as a solvent to >melt plastics into a paste for filling or welding cracks when forming [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >>>> time) to 31.5 miles per gallon. >>> And when your fuel pump melts, etc. don't come crying back here. > Like I said before acetone will melt certain plastics. (Thanks for > the acetone tips, never thought of doing that with my cars, etc.) You can simply take a sliver of the plastic and put it in a small clear preferably capped jar of acetone to see what happens. If it is a solvent for 'that' plastic, you will know in a few minutes. We used several small pieces soaked overnight in a sealed jar to make a paste in a tablespoon of solvent for a 'weld' or filler. We also used other solvents besides acetone for other plastics. Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's - Gone to the rust pile... Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote : > As a former repair man and robot builder, I used acetone as a solvent > to melt plastics into a paste for filling or welding cracks when [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It will melt and fuse that hard plastic stuff. I don't know for sure > about fuel pump parts, but.... ... http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/acetone.asp Interesting stuff
. http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2005/03/17/6900069_Acetone/ http://www.lubedev.com/smartgas/additive.htm http://www.lubedev.com/smartgas/quickies.htm >... > >http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/acetone.asp http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/acetone.asp http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2005/03/17/6900069_Acetone/ http://www.lubedev.com/smartgas/additive.htm http://www.lubedev.com/smartgas/quickies.htm >http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/acetone.asp > http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2005/03/17/6900069_Acetone/http://www.lube dev.com/smartgas/additive.htmhttp://www.lubedev.com/smartgas/quickies.htm > > >http://www.snopes.com/autos/techno/acetone.asp- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I see. Your motto is "Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up". Harry K Hank <hakone@ptd.net> wrote : > I am always amazed at the cynics out in the real world. I > fortuitously came across a bunch of acetone articles and did a bit [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >> >>http://www.lubedev.com/articles/additive.htm What does it do to the engine or fuel lines? Fuel lines? Nothing -- look what the fuel lines are made of. Engine / read below http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2005/03/17/6900069_Acetone/ http://www.lubedev.com/smartgas/additive.htm http://www.lubedev.com/smartgas/quickies.htm >Hank <hakone@ptd.net> wrote : > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > >What does it do to the engine or fuel lines? Hank <hakone@ptd.net> wrote in news:6fb8c351bfc4vbsdc2pu60qsdd484tj0cd@ 4ax.com: > Fuel lines? Nothing -- look what the fuel lines are made of. Engine > / read below > > http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2005/03/17/6900069_Acetone/ > http://www.lubedev.com/smartgas/additive.htm > http://www.lubedev.com/smartgas/quickies.htm I looked at the last one for fun, and it had everything absoultly WRONG for the first half of the page, I quit reading it then. if this is the crap you are using for your reference you can not reasearch for sh.t. KB >>Hank <hakone@ptd.net> wrote : >> [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >> >>What does it do to the engine or fuel lines? SignatureThunder Snake #9 "Protect" your rights or "lose" them. > Whether you believe this or not, I don't care. I have absolutely > nothing to sell or any conflict of interest. It worked for me. We don't belive you. People have been talking about this for 50 years, and no one has ever been able to prove it under *controlled* conditions. If you *think* you're getting better mileage, then I guess you can be happy in your ignorance. SignatureDavid M (dmacchiarolo) You are such an ass-hole... >> Whether you believe this or not, I don't care. I have absolutely >> nothing to sell or any conflict of interest. It worked for me. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >If you *think* you're getting better mileage, then I guess you can be >happy in your ignorance. But he's right nevertheless. :-) > You are such an ass-hole... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>If you *think* you're getting better mileage, then I guess you can be >>happy in your ignorance. Here are a few sites to look at, some pro and some con: http://www.wisebread.com/can-acetone-dramatically-increase-your-gas-mileage http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/PR/propanone.html http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2005/03/17/6900069_Acetone/ http://www.lubedev.com/smartgas/additive.htm http://www.lubedev.com/smartgas/quickies.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetone >But he's right nevertheless. :-) > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>>If you *think* you're getting better mileage, then I guess you can be >>>happy in your ignorance. > You are such an ass-hole... There's a real intelligent argument. Quote a valid scientific rather than a subjective source for the above statement. SignatureI. Care Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-} > > Whether you believe this or not, I don't care. I have absolutely > > nothing to sell or any conflict of interest. It worked for me. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > -- > David M (dmacchiarolo) Right up until all his rubber gaskets and o-rings in the fuel system disolve. Harry K Harry K <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote in article <1187274121.912220.15170@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>... > Right up until all his rubber gaskets and o-rings in the fuel system > disolve. Actually, if rubber was being used for O-rings, the standard gasoline would eat those up quite easily. Most fuel systems use - at a minimum - neoprene. Not again. Your data collection technique is faulty. Do you honestly believe if acetone was the wonder you are claiming that one of the BIG OIL of BIG CAR companies wouldn't start using it? All the BIG CAR companies are struggling to meet CAFE requirements. If merely adding a little acetone resulted in a 25% increase in mileage, don't you think they be falling all over themselves to require its use? And how about you fabulous Federal Government - don't you think at least one or two bureaucrats in the Energy or Transportation Departments wouldn't love to claim they decreased the need for imported oil by 15% or more? You say you "have absolutely nothing to sell or any conflict of interest." I can only include that you are the victim of faulty data collection or that you are a crackpot (you know like the guys who have been up in flying saucers). See: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18909941/ http://www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/reports.htm http://www.cartalk.com/content/columns/Archive/2006/January/08.html And I don't have any thing to gain by doubting your claims - I don't own a gas station, or any shares in any oil company or car company. I just hate to see people make silly claims. Regards, Ed White >I am always amazed at the cynics out in the real world. I > fortuitously came across a bunch of acetone articles and did a bit [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >> >>http://www.lubedev.com/articles/additive.htm Perhaps your information is mighty faulty. How does it feel to believe the oil and car companies? I know if I owned an oil company I would definitely want my sales to drop 25% so I can make my stockholders happy. Ditto with the auto industry. More efficient cars means less sales. Wake up! Unless you try it don't make foolish statements about a subject you know zilch about and take, feeblemindedly, what some other know-not says. Again, -- I tried it and used it with some success. Many skeptics just go along with whatever is PC. (Politically Correct) Like I said before It worked for me with no problems. If you never used acetone (except for your nail polish remover) how can you make accurate judgment statement? This shows your lack of mental prowess. In case anyone is interested here a few sites: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Acetone_as_a_Fuel_Additive#Lubricity_Addressed http://www.wisebread.com/can-acetone-dramatically-increase-your-gas-mileage http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/PR/propanone.html http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2005/03/17/6900069_Acetone/ http://www.lubedev.com/smartgas/additive.htm http://www.lubedev.com/smartgas/quickies.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetone On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:55:59 -0400, "C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote: >Not again. Your data collection technique is faulty. Do you honestly >believe if acetone was the wonder you are claiming that one of the BIG [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] >>> >>>http://www.lubedev.com/articles/additive.htm > Perhaps your information is mighty faulty. How does it feel to > believe the oil and car companies? I know if I owned an oil company I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > know zilch about and take, feeblemindedly, what some other know-not > says. OK. You're right about acetone. Will you shut the f.ck now, and go away? Such a temper, Have a beer.... >> Perhaps your information is mighty faulty. How does it feel to >> believe the oil and car companies? I know if I owned an oil company I [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >OK. You're right about acetone. Will you shut the f.ck now, and go away? Me? You're been the one insulting people who don't believe your theory. Now, you can pretend you didn't. > Such a temper, Have a beer.... > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >>OK. You're right about acetone. Will you shut the f.ck now, and go away? You said: "OK. You're right about acetone. Will you shut the f.ck now, and go away?" ================================== My first post said it all. If you are uncomfortable with the information I provided (I doubt you even read it all because if you did you might shut the f.ck up and go away yourself or we could have exchanged information which would benefit all) you may learn something instead of being a zygote in your learning. That aside --- I am gone and will not respond (or read) to any more of this tread. My email address is there/ but remember what I previous said. I just tried acetone and it worked for me.... nothing more or less should be taken from this.... if you don't use it or believe it it makes no difference to me. >Me? You're been the one insulting people who don't believe your theory. Now, >you can pretend you didn't. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >>> >>>OK. You're right about acetone. Will you shut the f.ck now, and go away? Hank <hakone@ptd.net> wrote in article <9ia9c3d92i9stbjp3fr6unujvqu4113plk@4ax.com>... > You said: "OK. You're right about acetone. Will you shut the f.ck now, > and go away?" [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > less should be taken from this.... if you don't use it or believe it > it makes no difference to me. Not just an a.shole.....but, a cowardly a.shole at that! Stir up a bucket of schidt, then walk away when he finds his statements being questioned.......... ...........and he has no answers.. Hank <hakone@ptd.net> wrote in article <tkj8c3d31f3mbqeiur1gu1hn4i126c1tb0@4ax.com>... > Perhaps your information is mighty faulty. How does it feel to > believe the oil and car companies? I know if I owned an oil company I > would definitely want my sales to drop 25% so I can make my > stockholders happy. Ditto with the auto industry. More efficient > cars means less sales. Wake up! Boy....You really ARE dense when it comes to business. Adding acetone to my fuel will cost a fraction of a penny-per-gallon. If I can advertise that my fuel INCREASES fuel mileage by 25%, I can sell it for at least ten cents per gallon MORE than I presently sell it for. The number of people switching to my fuel for its benefits will far outweigh the 25% decrease in current sales. Do you suppose THAT would make the stock holders happy? WAKE UP YOURSELF!!!! > Unless you try it don't make foolish statements about a subject you > know zilch about and take, feeblemindedly, what some other know-not > says. It is a wise man who takes his own advice! > Again, -- I tried it and used it with some success. Many skeptics > just go along with whatever is PC. (Politically Correct) Show us the scientific methods you used to come to a scientifically supportable conclusion. > Like I said before… It worked for me with no problems. > > If you never used acetone (except for your nail polish remover) how > can you make accurate judgment statement? This shows your lack of > mental prowess. And, the mental prowess of anyone who believes that a simple .002 percent mixture of something will synergistically return 25% should be questioned, also. > Perhaps your information is mighty faulty. How does it feel to > believe the oil and car companies? I know if I owned an oil company I > would definitely want my sales to drop 25% so I can make my > stockholders happy. Ditto with the auto industry. More efficient > cars means less sales. Wake up! Your understanding of the market is seriously off-kilter. If I were a station owner and could gaurantee my customers a big boost in mileage, I wouldn't have to worry about selling less gas, I would have customers lined up for blocks and my competitors would be going broke. Of course someone who buys into the 'acetone' myth would also be expected to beleive in the 'gas company conspiracy'. Tell me, how much of a boost did you get from strapping those magnets to your gas line? Harry K > Perhaps your information is mighty faulty. How does it feel to > believe the oil and car companies? So why should I believe you instead? People are always making unverifiable claims. What makes you claims "special." > I know if I owned an oil company I > would definitely want my sales to drop 25% so I can make my > stockholders happy. Ditto with the auto industry. More efficient > cars means less sales. Wake up! If I owned a small oil company and I wanted my sales to increase I'd jump on this. If I was in the government, I'd jump on it. If I ran a car company I'd jump on it (assuming it worked). Exactly why would better gas mileage mean fewer car sales? It might reduce the sales of gasoline, but why would it decrease the sales of cars? > Unless you try it don't make foolish statements about a subject you > know zilch about and take, feeblemindedly, what some other know-not > says. At least I know that drawing a conclusion based on a couple of tank fulls of gas is foolish. There are too many variable for you to make the sort of extreme claims you are making. Your statement about "filling up to the first click" was a clear indication that you weren't even trying to conduct a careful experiment. Bogus data collection = bogus conclusions. At least run the test over a few thousand miles (assuming the few thousand miles don't include something like a long vacation trip). I keep detailed gas mileage records for all of my vehicles. I've had 25% differences in mileage between tank fulls without making any changes. You need to average your results over at least 3 tank fulls to reduce the errors associated with just filling the tank - and this is assuming there are no radical differences in your driving pattern, driving conditions, or the fuel formulations over the measurement periods. > Again, -- I tried it and used it with some success. Many skeptics > just go along with whatever is PC. (Politically Correct) > > Like I said before. It worked for me with no problems. And there are people that claim magnets, vortex generators, etc. have made significant differences. Despite this, the EPA has never found any of these devices to be effective in increasing fuel economy. > If you never used acetone (except for your nail polish remover) how > can you make accurate judgment statement? This shows your lack of > mental prowess. I haven't tried pissing in the gas tank either, but I am pretty sure that won't work any better than acetone. I have researched this subject multiple times. Every time, the people I trust say it doesn't work and that it might have detrimental effects on your fuel system. One of my co-worked was exactly like you. He added some acetone to his gas and came in with glowing reports of how great it was. I pinned him down and asked him to show me the records. His one tank average showed a dramatic improvement. A month later his five tank average was the same as he "claimed" he was getting before he added acetone. Again - Bogus Data Collection = Bogus Conclusions. > In case anyone is interested here a few sites: > > http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Acetone_as_a_Fuel_Additive#Lubricity_Addressed I don't see a single properly conducted test on this site. Lots of claims from individuals, (and not all positive), but nothing approximating a properly constructed test. > http://www.wisebread.com/can-acetone-dramatically-increase-your-gas-mileage Gosh, this article mostly says it doesn't work. > http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/PR/propanone.html This is a safety data sheet for acetone. It say nothing about it usefulness as a fuel additive. > http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2005/03/17/6900069_Acetone/ No test results, but a pseudo scientific explanation of why acetone might work. It looks to me like this web site is really trying to sell ScanGauges. > http://www.lubedev.com/smartgas/additive.htm Well I give this guy credit for being long winded. But where is the beef? He makes a lot of claims and verifies nothing. I bet this guy has one of the 200 mpg carburetors somewhere in his garage. > http://www.lubedev.com/smartgas/quickies.htm Wow, there are so many inaccurate "hints" / "facts" on this page it would take weeks to address them all. The benefits of acetone isn't even the worst claim made on this page. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetone This is mostly a description of acetone. They mention that some people claim that it improves fuel economy (no data) and they also mention the "Myth Busters" episode that found no advantage to using acetone. Do you have a reference to a well designed and conducted test that shows an improvement when using acetone? Ed > Unless you try it don't make foolish statements about a subject you > know zilch about and take, feeblemindedly, what some other know-not > says. I don't know zilch about heart surgery either, but I'm not going to try it on myself and see how it works. Are you? Since that seems to be your argument, try it and see for yourself, with no valid independent recognized scientific tests I guess you should. Please post your personaly performed (on yourself) heart surgery results here. SignatureI. Care Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-} IF acetone was the wonder elixer you claim, the government would demand it be mixed into the fuel supply. The enviro whackos would drive the bus on that, you can be absolutely certain. Sitting in the front rows of the bus would all those that say we must reduce our demand for oil. Having said that, acetone is a petroleum product, so any real analysis of its good or bad qualities vis a vis internal combustion fuel consumption rates would have to include the production processes. You are suggesting a few table spoons to 10 gallons, so perhaps the numbers work out -- let's say that 5 table spoons costs a dime, on that basis it might make sense to pour a little into the tank. Amorizing the added dime over ten gallons is only a penney per gallon. > Perhaps your information is mighty faulty. How does it feel to > believe the oil and car companies? I know if I owned an oil company I [quoted text clipped - 116 lines] >>>> >>>>http://www.lubedev.com/articles/additive.htm >Perhaps your information is mighty faulty. How does it feel to >believe the oil and car companies? I know if I owned an oil company I >would definitely want my sales to drop 25% so I can make my >stockholders happy. Ditto with the auto industry. More efficient >cars means less sales. Wake up! That makes no sense on the auto maker part. If I could make my car get 25% better mileage I would drive more than I do now. If I drive more the car wears out sooner so the auto manufacturer sells more cars. At worst if the auto manufacturer could make the car get better mileage then more people could afford to drive SUVs which the auto maker makes more money on. If the suvs were getting better mileage then CAFE requirements become less of an issue so the auto maker can just drop the low end high gas mileage low profit cars and focus all their efforts on big highly profitable SUVs and mini vans. Steve B. > In case anyone is interested here a few sites: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetone And the fact that all the "pro-acetone" articles you cited were written the same person (Louis LaPointe) doesn't concern you as a lack of objectivity? Most people will believe what they want to believe. So, if you truly believe that your unscientific study "proves" your claim, then be happy in your ignorance. Enjoy! SignatureDavid M (dmacchiarolo) Hank <hakone@ptd.net> wrote in article <ppn6c3tuuvkqq89hohsah0sq238371uc8b@4ax.com>... > I am always amazed at the cynics out in the real world. I > fortuitously came across a bunch of acetone articles and did a bit [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > pure Acetone, $10 or so, and added it to my tank. (I used about 3 oz > per 10 gals.) Three ounces in ten gallons (1280 ounces) is, approximately .002 percent - That's two thousandths of one percent. Based on measurement alone, it is difficult to believe that such a percentage would have ANY effect, whatsoever, on the burning of the fuel. If the acetone is THAT concentrated, I'd want to dress up in full HAZ-MAT suit, hood and gloves to handle it - that's for sure. That amount of water in gasoline is considered "insignificant". > After two tank fulls - I used just the first click on the pump each > time. Who needs beakers and precision measuring vessels? Can't get much more scientific than that...... Every single automatic-shut-off pump nozzle in the entire world has been calibrated to stop at exactly the same point - regardless of flow, pump pressure, nozzle orientation in the filler neck, etc. >My auto is a 91 Ply Acclaim 3.0. My miles per gal went from > about 24-25 (regular driving, non-highway with air on most of the > time) to 31.5 miles per gallon. > > Whether you believe this or not, I don't care. Well, I'm certainly glad to hear that, because I believe you are full of schidt!!!! > I have absolutely > nothing to sell or any conflict of interest. But, you ARE tryuing to "sell" yourself as someone who knows things...... ......but, the people who really DO know things realize that you are, simply, another gullible a.shole! > It worked for me. > > What suppose to happen is it, the acetone, helps the vaporization of > the gas in the chamber for a more efficient burn Exactly how does this work? There are only so many BTUs of energy in a gallon of gas, and it is HEAT that drives the internal combustion engine. How does the mixture create MORE heat from the same gallon of gasoline? Too rich, and there is little heat. Too lean - as you're scenario would suggest - and there is less efficiency in the combustion chamber, more heat out the exhaust and into the cooling system. What is REALLY "supposed" to happen is that such scientific-sounding statements sound scientific enough to work on gullible people. It seems to have worked in your case. That, or your fellow workers are SO tired of your bullschidt, that they have been secretly adding fuel to your car. In a few weeks, they should start siphoning fuel away - after you have put yourself out on a limb with preposterous statements such as the ones you have posted here. > and no excess gas > getting pissed out and wasting your money. Very little - if any - gas gets "pissed out" these days what with electronic fuel injection and ignition timing controlled by engine temp, oxygen sensors, etc. > Guys/ and Gals/ it's your car and money. Yup! And I'm not about to run strong solvents such as acetone - known for its ability to melt many plastics - through my car's fuel system.....saving both my car and my money. > >Acetone is available at autoparts stores, walgreens, walmarts, etc, > >and costs only 10 to 15 cents per ounce. Everyone who cares about air [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > > >http://www.snakeoil.com/articles/additive.htm Only a gullible fool buys into the notion that the oil companies are buying up fuel-saving devices, and keeping "amazing fuel-saving discoveries" under wraps. Take a CLOSE look into the mirror tomorrow morning. This acetone thing has been around for several years now, yet nobody - NOBODY - has managed to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it works. NOBODY has brought acetone-laced gasoline to market. Why has there been no smart, independent gas station operator simply adding 20 gallons of acetone to his 10,000 gallon storage tank (.002 percent), then advertising better fuel mileage with his gasoline? Hell, he wouldn't need to advertise. Word of mouth would get around, and he would have long lines at his pumps 24/7. Can you imagine the profit potential of an independent dealer - or oil company - being able to advertise - and, of course, PROVE - that their fuel gives 25 percent MORE mileage than its closest competitor? Why don't YOU buy a small, independent gas station or convenience store, and launch this great idea? That would prove yet another theory - "A fool and his money are soon parted." > Whether you believe this or not, I don't care. You posted 9 more times in this thread already, in a single day. When you're trying to make somebody believe something like this, don't demonstrate that you're a liar right in the same breath. Oh, and thanks for crossposting. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.