I disagree, oil companies want to sell more. Already 1 surfactant
can incr torque ( even 20%, after 1yr use ) & decr noise ( 40% on
diesel ), surely incr mpg, oil co.s are unlikely to want to add this
into their petrol / diesel.
Most cars have design flaws, corecting them is 1 way to incr mpg.
>| If it actually improved mileage, the oil
> | companies would be putting it in there already.
> I disagree, oil companies want to sell more. Already 1 surfactant
> can incr torque ( even 20%, after 1yr use ) & decr noise ( 40% on
> diesel ), surely incr mpg, oil co.s are unlikely to want to add this
> into their petrol / diesel.
Oil companies might object to adding acetone but I think this claim is
not credible for the reasons stated above. I believe they know it is a
worthless addition. Car manufacturers under pressure to increase fuel
economy (marketing and regulatory) have tremendous incentive to
increase fuel economy. If acetone did anything, anything at all
(increase fuel economy by 0.1%), the car companies would demand it be
added to fuel. If the oil companies refused, then the car companies
would add acetone metering units and sell the stuff themselves. I have
a couple of friends who have bought into this myth big time. In every
case where I asked for records to prove the claim, it was obvious that
they had nothing that approached credible evidence. Poor data
gathering does no equal an actual improvement. People have been
believing in the miracle fuel economy "improver" for as long as people
have been building cars. The EPA has tested acetone and many other
miracle fuel economy improvers and found almost all to be totally
bogus.
> | Properly inflated tires and clean filters will improve your
> | mileage.
> Most cars have design flaws, corecting them is 1 way to incr mpg.
Most car definitely include design flaws, but the cheap crap sold as
fixes is usually bogus. Acetone, magnets, swirl inducers, atomizers,
etc., etc., etc. are just a few of the more common scams.
Ed
TE Chea - 18 Nov 2008 14:43 GMT
| car companies would demand it be added to fuel.
Only if they own the oil companies.
| car companies would add acetone metering units and sell the stuff
| themselves.
They don't produce petrolem products.
| People have been
| believing in the miracle fuel economy "improver" for as long as people
| have been building cars.
This surfactant I buy & use can work. I don't publicise this fact
( or the common design flaws I found & corrected ) because 5%
of the drivers & bikers here in Msia are bastards ( esp 1 neigh
bour with same 2 cars as mine ), I don't want them to benefit from
my discoveries / effort, however much I like to decr CO2.
| The EPA has tested acetone and many other
| miracle fuel economy improvers and found almost all to be totally
| bogus.
I had 8 ( neodymium, very strong ) magnets fitted on my fuel line
, & test driven for 5 minutes. No difference was felt.
| swirl inducers, atomizers,
| etc., etc., etc. are just a few of the more common scams.
Swirler ( if well made ) in carburetor can cause finer petrol mist
& incr torque ( as on BBC 's Tomorrow's World in 1984 ): I felt a
small 1-2% extra torque in my test drive with *"Cyclone" ( from
Korea, its 8 fins were too few to create more swirl ). My govnmnt
studied * & found a tiny drop in CO / NO discharge.