Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / August 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

10 to 25% better MPG, with 2 or 3 ounces of Acetone per 10 gals of gas

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Max - 06 May 2007 17:42 GMT
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
Larry Bud - 06 May 2007 17:48 GMT
> 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.
Max - 06 May 2007 18:00 GMT
> > 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
SnoMan - 06 May 2007 18:46 GMT
>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
Bonehenge (B A R R Y) - 06 May 2007 18:55 GMT
>>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>
mack - 06 May 2007 19:44 GMT
>>>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.
stalker - 10 May 2007 20:14 GMT
> >>>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
Max - 06 May 2007 19:48 GMT
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.
Studemania - 06 May 2007 21:09 GMT
> 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?
SnoMan - 07 May 2007 01:22 GMT
>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
Elmo P. Shagnasty - 07 May 2007 01:49 GMT
> 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.
Jeff Strickland - 07 May 2007 01:57 GMT
>> 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 ...
SnoMan - 07 May 2007 02:36 GMT
>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
Ed White - 09 May 2007 18:08 GMT
> 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
SnoMan - 09 May 2007 18:17 GMT
>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
Spdloader - 07 May 2007 02:36 GMT
"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
SnoMan - 07 May 2007 04:13 GMT
>"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
David M - 07 May 2007 10:42 GMT
> 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"

Signature

David M  (dmacchiarolo)

Spdloader - 07 May 2007 14:21 GMT
>>"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
aarcuda69062 - 07 May 2007 14:25 GMT
> >>"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...
Spdloader - 07 May 2007 14:39 GMT
>> >>"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...
Scott en Aztlán - 07 May 2007 15:11 GMT
"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. :)
Signature

MFFYCam Videos Galore: http://www.geocities.com/mffycam/

Spdloader - 07 May 2007 15:21 GMT
> "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 - 07 May 2007 15:25 GMT
> "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 - 07 May 2007 15:32 GMT
> "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
Studemania - 08 May 2007 21:14 GMT
> "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.
Spdloader - 09 May 2007 01:08 GMT
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
bob zee - 07 May 2007 16:04 GMT
> 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.
Magnulus - 08 May 2007 20:48 GMT
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.
Jeff - 09 May 2007 01:38 GMT
>    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
* - 09 May 2007 14:16 GMT
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......
EdV - 09 May 2007 15:21 GMT
A silly question : Then why do they sell pure acetone in cheap plastic
containers if it dissolves/corrodes expensive fuel lines?
Jeff - 09 May 2007 15:24 GMT
>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
Matthew T. Russotto - 09 May 2007 19:21 GMT
>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.
Signature

 There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
 result in a fully-depreciated one.

Tomes - 10 May 2007 04:08 GMT
>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
Studemania - 10 May 2007 07:40 GMT
> >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.
Tomes - 11 May 2007 03:37 GMT
"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
Motorhead Lawyer - 08 May 2007 18:36 GMT
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)
I. Care - 06 May 2007 19:49 GMT
> >>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.
Signature

I. Care
Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-}

Elmo P. Shagnasty - 06 May 2007 19:55 GMT
> 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?
Tegger - 07 May 2007 01:33 GMT
"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?

Signature

Tegger

SnoMan - 07 May 2007 02:42 GMT
>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
Jeff - 07 May 2007 04:14 GMT
>>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
Ed White - 09 May 2007 18:21 GMT
> >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
Joe - 07 May 2007 02:14 GMT
>> 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.
TE Chea - 15 May 2007 15:06 GMT
| > 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.
tazmanian@devil.com - 07 May 2007 06:36 GMT
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
jcr - 12 May 2007 20:48 GMT
>> 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.
Mike Hunter - 12 May 2007 21:45 GMT
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.
Scott Dorsey - 12 May 2007 23:54 GMT
>> 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."

Mike H - 06 May 2007 19:57 GMT
> > > 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.
I. Care - 06 May 2007 19:58 GMT
> 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?
Signature

I. Care
Address fake until the SPAM goes away ;-}

HLS@nospam.nix - 07 May 2007 14:28 GMT
"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)
Dave and Trudy - 08 May 2007 08:04 GMT
> "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
Jeff - 08 May 2007 13:33 GMT
<...>

> 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
Ray O - 08 May 2007 16:47 GMT
>> "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.
Signature


Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

EdV - 08 May 2007 19:35 GMT
<<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?
Ray O - 08 May 2007 19:54 GMT
> <<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.
Signature


Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

Motorhead Lawyer - 08 May 2007 20:16 GMT
> > <<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
Jeff - 09 May 2007 01:29 GMT
<...>

> 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.
rm@biteme.org - 09 May 2007 01:35 GMT
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
Ray O - 09 May 2007 04:51 GMT
> In alt.autos.toyota Jeff <news@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> rm

Yup, that's what I meant! ;-)
Signature


Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

B A R R Y - 08 May 2007 19:54 GMT
>  so where else do they use Acetone by the way?
> as an industrial cleaner?

Yup.

It does an amazing job cleaning spray equipment.
Jeff - 09 May 2007 01:28 GMT
> <<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.
Old Wolf - 10 May 2007 00:48 GMT
> <<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?
Jeff - 10 May 2007 00:49 GMT
>> <<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
David M - 06 May 2007 20:09 GMT
> 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

Signature

David M  (dmacchiarolo)
http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled
T/S 53
sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14  has been up 2 days 7:16

Elmo P. Shagnasty - 06 May 2007 20:47 GMT
> > 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...
David M - 06 May 2007 22:18 GMT
> 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.

Signature

David M  (dmacchiarolo)
http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled
T/S 53
sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14  has been up 2 days 9:43

Larry Bud - 07 May 2007 04:36 GMT
> > > 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.
Elmo P. Shagnasty - 06 May 2007 19:55 GMT
> > 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.
Studemania - 06 May 2007 21:00 GMT
> > 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
Studemania - 06 May 2007 21:17 GMT
> > > 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.
Jeff - 07 May 2007 01:14 GMT
> 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
Tegger - 07 May 2007 01:44 GMT
>> 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>

Signature

Tegger

Jeff - 07 May 2007 02:19 GMT
>>> 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
Hachiroku ハチロク - 07 May 2007 02:44 GMT
> 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.
Jeff - 07 May 2007 04:05 GMT
>> 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
disston - 08 May 2007 16:12 GMT
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
Hachiroku ハチロク - 07 May 2007 02:41 GMT
> 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...
Whitelightning - 07 May 2007 03:09 GMT
>> 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
Jeff - 07 May 2007 04:10 GMT
>>> 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
Hachiroku ハチロク - 07 May 2007 04:23 GMT
> 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!
Mike Hunter - 07 May 2007 19:56 GMT
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.
Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS - 09 May 2007 02:55 GMT
> 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!!
Drunken Driver - 09 May 2007 04:00 GMT
>> 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?

Signature

We're all here
because we're not all there.

Hachiroku ハチロク - 09 May 2007 15:44 GMT
>>> 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...
Old Wolf - 10 May 2007 00:49 GMT
> 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
Hachiroku ハチロク - 10 May 2007 04:42 GMT
>> 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!
Matthew T. Russotto - 10 May 2007 22:04 GMT
>> On May 10, 2:44 am, Hachiroku ハチロク <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.
Signature

 There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
 result in a fully-depreciated one.

Dave and Trudy - 11 May 2007 12:13 GMT
///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
* - 14 May 2007 02:52 GMT
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.............
Steve Barker - 14 May 2007 03:39 GMT
He was talking about Torque-steer.  Something ill designed cars, or ones
that have been wrecked have.

Signature

Steve Barker

> Now, that's absolutely amazing......
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> I'm ALWAYS amazed when bullshitters try to out-bullshit each
> other.............
Dave and Trudy - 14 May 2007 10:22 GMT
> 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.............
Scott Dorsey - 14 May 2007 15:46 GMT
>> 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."

Dave and Trudy - 15 May 2007 06:44 GMT
>>> 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
* - 14 May 2007 12:58 GMT
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?
Dave and Trudy - 15 May 2007 06:37 GMT
> 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
* - 15 May 2007 13:05 GMT
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......
Whitelightning - 15 May 2007 14:37 GMT
> 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