 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / October 2005Acetone Added To Fuel?
Hi, I've been hearing alot about increased mileage and other benefits of adding acetone to fuel (about 2.5 ounces per 10 gallons). I havent heard of any bad incidents happening. a few people claim to have done tests and everthing I could find online seems to be good. Has anyone here tried it before...good?...bad? I'm considering trying it out...2.5 Oz/10 gals seems to be diluted enough not to cause harm. Pete >Hi, >I've been hearing alot about increased mileage and other benefits of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><> > Heres what I found so far http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2005/03/17/6900069_Acetone/ Good article and some very useful information. I have worked with acetone for many years, fiberglass processes.. One should also note that Acetone will absorb large quantizes of moisture when the container is left open or as the amount of Acetone is reduced in the container and air replaces this absent volume. ( I use to know this in my younger days, but all I remember now is that Acetone can absorb many times it's own volume.) This moisture in the Acetone, most likely, will effect the expected performance in this case. (I know it does when cleaning surfaces with Acetone.) I would recommend obtaining small glass bottles that would hold the exact amount you are going to add to your tank. That way there would not be a minimum air space above the Acetone. These small container could be filled at home in a controlled environment. I don't recommend using most plastic containers with Acetone since it will eventually dissolve or soften this material. Metal or glass is all I ever use. A small plastic funnel could be used for decanting the Acetone since the residual will evaporate before any harm to the plastic is done.  SignatureMy experience and opinion, FWIW Steve > >>Hi, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source > <><><><><><><><> > I don't recommend using most plastic containers with Acetone since it will > eventually dissolve or soften this material. Metal or glass is all I ever > use. A small plastic funnel could be used for decanting the Acetone since > the residual will evaporate before any harm to the plastic is done. Keep in mind that acetone (more commonly known as nail polish remover) WILL soften, melt, and/or dissolve some plastics. My concern is how it might affect fuel level sensors, especially with some Hondas like my Accord, where the fuel pump is also inside the tank. --- avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean. Virus Database (VPS): 0540-8, 10/07/2005 Tested on: 10/9/2005 10:54:46 AM avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software. http://www.avast.com >Good article and some very useful information. Heh. The latest urban myth. Ask yourself: If it is so easy and simple, why hasn't it been done before (let's not hear the usual nonsensical oil/auto cabal conspiracy stuff again). Why wouldn't an auto company have used this for their advantage? Instead, they want to invest $billions in hybrids that give no better benefit?? If 15-30% of the fuel is not burned without adding acetone (otherwise, how would it add that much by simply better vaporizing the fuel?), why does that not result in violation of the emissions laws now? Yes, it could all be burnt in the cat, but that would fry the cat rather quickly. Sorry, this is the latest internet joke. my boss used it and went from 36 mpg to 45 mpg in his tercel. he stopped using it and on his first tank without acetone has dropped back to 40mpg. he's expecting by his next tank he'll be back down to 36 mpg again. >>Good article and some very useful information. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Sorry, this is the latest internet joke. > If 15-30% of the fuel is not burned without adding acetone > (otherwise, how would it add that much by simply better vaporizing > the fuel?), why does that not result in violation of the emissions > laws now? Yes, it could all be burnt in the cat, but that would fry > the cat rather quickly. I can't quote exact figures of percentage of fuel unburned, but it is well known that unburned fuel is used in a standard engine for cooling. Experimental engines have been built of heat tolerant materials to make better use of the fuel, but this is expensive. I read an article about 15 years ago about a V-2 engine installed in a small car, which gave surprisingly good performance and ran a hundred or two degrees hotter than typical car engines. Also, it is well known to any airplane pilot that you adjust the fuel mixture to regulate head temperature. Car engines are no different. Your unburned fuel is indeed burned in the catalytic converter. That's why it's dangerous to park on a pile of leaves. It may very well be that you could improve performance with acetone, or maybe not. We'll just have to see. But I would be concerned about the plastics in the fuel system. I'd hate to get great performance at the expense of ruining the car. >> If 15-30% of the fuel is not burned without adding acetone >> (otherwise, how would it add that much by simply better vaporizing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I can't quote exact figures of percentage of fuel unburned, but it is > well known that unburned fuel is used in a standard engine for cooling. You're thinking of the WOT enrichment feature. That's indeed there to protect various emissions components. > Experimental engines have been built of heat tolerant materials to make > better use of the fuel, but this is expensive. I read an article about > 15 years ago about a V-2 engine installed in a small car, which gave > surprisingly good performance and ran a hundred or two degrees hotter > than typical car engines. Would this be the "adiabatic" thing that was experimentally big in the mid- '80s, but never went anywhere past that? > Also, it is well known to any airplane pilot that you adjust the fuel > mixture to regulate head temperature. Car engines are no different. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > plastics in the fuel system. I'd hate to get great performance at the > expense of ruining the car. I did some Internet digging about just that, with inconclusive results. I think the problem is that nobody involved in this debate is a chemist, nobody has any idea what polymers are used in automotive seals, and therefore nobody has any idea if acetone would cause damage or not. In other words, you're all dumb, but are all pretending not to be. SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ > > I can't quote exact figures of percentage of fuel unburned, but it is > > well known that unburned fuel is used in a standard engine for cooling. > > You're thinking of the WOT enrichment feature. That's indeed there to > protect various emissions components. I'll tell you up front that I don't have a lot of specialized knowledge of modern computerized automotive fuel systems, emission systems or control systems. All I am saying is that common gasoline engines made of iron and/or aluminum would be destroyed by the heat produced by gasoline burning at its optimal mixture ratio with air. It's just too hot for common materials. For this simple reason, the gasoline is burned in a richer ratio so that the vaporization of the extra gasoline will absorb the heat energy and protect the engine from burning up. This happens at all throttle settings and all driving conditions. > > Experimental engines have been built of heat tolerant materials to make > > better use of the fuel, but this is expensive. I read an article about [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Would this be the "adiabatic" thing that was experimentally big in the mid- > '80s, but never went anywhere past that? I don't remember what they called it, but it used high temp materials. Now that I'm thinking about it, ceramics could have been involved to some extent. > > Also, it is well known to any airplane pilot that you adjust the fuel > > mixture to regulate head temperature. Car engines are no different. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > -- > TeGGeR® You could say that they're optimistic but short-sighted. I suppose you could go to the junkyard and remove a sample of every plastic part in the fuel system of a car similar to your own, and see if acetone has any detrimental effect on it. That sure would be a lot of trouble... But that's the great thing about the internet. If this method really does improve mileage, sooner or later somebody will probably start a database of such information. I hope nobody melts down their fuel pump body in the meantime. By the way, thanks for your FAQ site. A few weeks ago I bought a Honda that was doing some strange things. Your links led me to the fault code info that helped me fix it easily. (actually the problem was kind of obvious, but it was good to be sure.) >I'll tell you up front that I don't have a lot of specialized knowledge >of modern computerized automotive fuel systems, emission systems or [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >will absorb the heat energy and protect the engine from burning up. >This happens at all throttle settings and all driving conditions. Nah, AFAIK most engines run very close to "stoichiometric" air:fuel ratio (14.7:1 lbs) at most throttle settings. See: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/catalytic-converter1.htm The O2 sensor checks this. Throttle enrichment _is_ used at higher throttle settings, in part to do the cooling you mention, in part to make more power. But otherwise, if it ran rich at normal settings, there would be an awful lot of unburn HC's going through the exhaust. The cat could catch some, IF there was extra air there to burn it. There is some O2 storage capability of the cat support, and one can use a secondary air pump to do this. But I do not think these normally come into play much, though I'm no cat expert. And OTOH, note that lean-burn engines, like direct injection, can run, duh, lean. There, I suppose, the issue is high NOx which can be addressed with special cat design. See, for instance: http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.jp/inter/technology/env_04.html and http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/tt/license/technologies/index. php?fuseaction=home.viewTechnology&id=549 >> > I can't quote exact figures of percentage of fuel unburned, but it >> > is well known that unburned fuel is used in a standard engine for [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > produced by gasoline burning at its optimal mixture ratio with air. > It's just too hot for common materials. That's what cooling systems are for. Combustion chamber temperatures need to be under about 2,100F to prevent formation of nitric oxides. Oil temperature needs to be under about 220F to prevent coking. Coolant temperature needs to be under 212F (give a bit more) to prevent boiling. > For this simple reason, the > gasoline is burned in a richer ratio so that the vaporization of the > extra gasoline will absorb the heat energy and protect the engine from > burning up. This happens at all throttle settings and all driving > conditions. If some portion of the gasoline fails to mate with oxygen, the result is rich running, or high carbon monoxide readings, which I assure you are rather tightly controlled these days. The aim of the oxygen sensor, as Dave has pointed out, is to maintain the mixture such that the most complete combustion can occur, and emissions are kept to their minimum, even absent the cat. At wide-open throttle (WOT) there is the possibility of lean condition, which can overheat particular components to the point of damage. Additional power is part of the reason for enrichment, such as in diesels, but is very much subservient to emissions reduction. >> > Experimental engines have been built of heat tolerant materials to >> > make better use of the fuel, but this is expensive. I read an [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Now that I'm thinking about it, ceramics could have been involved to > some extent. Ceramics did play a role, to be sure. The major problem with adiabatic engines as I recall had to do with lubrication. Oils simply coked terribly. They experimented with certain substances that were solid until an electrical current was applied to them, at which point they liquified. Unfortunately, these substances had some unexpected abrasive qualities which disqualified them from use as lubricants. <snip> > By the way, thanks for your FAQ site. A few weeks ago I bought a > Honda that was doing some strange things. Your links led me to the > fault code info that helped me fix it easily. (actually the problem > was kind of obvious, but it was good to be sure.) Glad the site was of some help. Just out of curiosity, what was the problem, and what was the code? SignatureTeGGeR® The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ >If some portion of the gasoline fails to mate with oxygen, the result is >rich running, or high carbon monoxide readings, which I assure you are >rather tightly controlled these days. The aim of the oxygen sensor, as Dave >has pointed out, is to maintain the mixture such that the most complete >combustion can occur, and emissions are kept to their minimum, even absent >the cat. Thanks for the citation. But as I previously mentioned, engines can, and do, go rich at and near WOT. It is used for (a) more power and (b) cooler running. But yeah, it will result in more emissions. It isn't tested for in a typical EPA emissions cycle, which is much lower power. It is permitted (which I sometimes find surprising). I suppose the cat's limited O2-storage capability can handle a bit of this, but not all or for long. I was running ahead of a friend and when they pressed me, I stomped on it (brand new '05 car). They said they could smell the HC's permeating into their car! >>If 15-30% of the fuel is not burned without adding acetone >>(otherwise, how would it add that much by simply better vaporizing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I can't quote exact figures of percentage of fuel unburned, but it is > well known that unburned fuel is used in a standard engine for cooling. no it's not. exhaust gas used to be recirculated, but that's been dropped these days, and in racing cars, fuel was dumped to cool piston crowns on throttle close, but excess fule in the combustion chamber with throttle open? no. > Experimental engines have been built of heat tolerant materials to make > better use of the fuel, but this is expensive. I read an article about > 15 years ago about a V-2 engine installed in a small car, which gave > surprisingly good performance and ran a hundred or two degrees hotter > than typical car engines. higher temps make for better thermodynamic efficiency, and all kinds of research has been done on higher temperature combusion technology, not just some random experiment on a v-2 engine [configuration is UTTERLY irrelevant btw]. but the bottom line is, it'll never come to pass because there's problems wil NOx emissions and the materials that survive these higher temps cost too much and last /way/ too long. > Also, it is well known to any airplane pilot that you adjust the fuel > mixture to regulate head temperature. Car engines are no different. > Your unburned fuel is indeed burned in the catalytic converter. That's > why it's dangerous to park on a pile of leaves. eh? there's three reactions going on in a catalyst. they all generate heat. only one is anything to do with hydrocarbons, and the load relative to the volume of combustion product passing through it is pretty light if the engine/management system is within spec. > It may very well be that you could improve performance with acetone, or > maybe not. We'll just have to see. But I would be concerned about the > plastics in the fuel system. I'd hate to get great performance at the > expense of ruining the car. why don't you look up the calorific value of acetone and compare it with gasoline? there'a no "we'll just have to see" about it. >> I can't quote exact figures of percentage of fuel unburned, but it is >> well known that unburned fuel is used in a standard engine for cooling. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >crowns on throttle close, but excess fule in the combustion chamber with >throttle open? no. Hmmm. Are you sure you are up to speed on this. AFAIK... (a) EGR is still used. Do a quick google of EGR and any recent car. I came up with... www.begierbuick.com/rendezvous_info.htm (b) EGR was probably never used at full power for cooling. Well maybe it was, but I couldn't fathom why. It puts diluent in rather than valuable air. Air which would allow more fuel, and thus more power. Why would you size an engine and then only use part of it at full power by running an inert-diluted gas through it that lowers that max power? (c) You are way off base. Look at any fuel:air curve from one of the many dyno places that supply it. You'll see air:fuel ratios of ca. 12:1 at high power. Rich. Excess fuel. Geez. >survive these higher temps cost too much and last /way/ too long. Your usual conspiracy gambit, eh? I'll agree with the first part (cost). Yeah, we want to sell you engines that don't last. The vehicle itself (and in most cases, people's taste) is what limits the life of the vast majority of vehicle's life, not the primary engine components. >> It may very well be that you could improve performance with acetone, or >> maybe not. We'll just have to see. But I would be concerned about the >> plastics in the fuel system. I'd hate to get great performance at the >> expense of ruining the car. >why don't you look up the calorific value of acetone and compare it with >gasoline? there'a no "we'll just have to see" about it. I'm with you on this acetone thing being a fraud. But the argument wasn't about it being due to added heating value, but instead due to some magical increase of fuel vaporization/mixing/whatever. As if 15-30% of fuel is currently NOT vaporized at normal operating conditions. Yeah, right (sigh). The amount of half-correct, half-baked info in this (and most) ng's and forums never ceases to amaze. > >> I can't quote exact figures of percentage of fuel unburned, but it is > >> well known that unburned fuel is used in a standard engine for cooling. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the many dyno places that supply it. You'll see air:fuel ratios of > ca. 12:1 at high power. Rich. Excess fuel. snip +++++++++++++++++++++ The EGR is to reduce combustion temps so NOX aren't formed. It takes very little to reduce the temps below this "magic" value. Back when I had a Subrau I played with the EGR and found that shutting it off did not improve my MPG. It knocked it down between 5% and 10% and required the next higher octane to stop knock on hills. This was on a 1980 1800cc non cat engine. The cars I have had since weren't as easy to defeat the EGR valve and I wasn't all that inclined to experiment. The car had just over 200K and the body was starting to rust and we had bought another car so before she went to the junk yard I tried some experiments. The only one that really helepd was water injection, but I never found a "good" way to achieve it. The amount of water had to be tweaked for ambiant temps. It gave about a 5% boast in MPG, allowed me to use the lowest octane gas I could find and improved acceleration up a step hill, KY 15 at Slade. Several of the guys here at work are trying acetone and 2 have built in MPG meters. So within a couple of weeks I ought to be able to relay any results. One guy drives to Louisville 4 times a week , so the results ought to be interesting. Terry >>>I can't quote exact figures of percentage of fuel unburned, but it is >>>well known that unburned fuel is used in a standard engine for cooling. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > recent car. I came up with... > www.begierbuick.com/rendezvous_info.htm buick??? name one single aspect of design in which buick is innovative! honda started to move away from egr in civics in 96 iirc - reliability problems and the same effects can be achieved with valve timing changes. > (b) EGR was probably never used at full power for cooling. Well > maybe it was, but I couldn't fathom why. It puts diluent in rather > than valuable air. Air which would allow more fuel, and thus more > power. Why would you size an engine and then only use part of it at > full power by running an inert-diluted gas through it that lowers > that max power? because it reduces combusion temp and therefore NOx. > (c) You are way off base. Look at any fuel:air curve from one of > the many dyno places that supply it. You'll see air:fuel ratios of > ca. 12:1 at high power. Rich. Excess fuel. vehicles won't smog at that level. the ecu can/does go rich on wot, depending on other factors, but what percentage of a vehicle's life is spent in that condition? > Geez. > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > The amount of half-correct, half-baked info in this (and most) ng's > and forums never ceases to amaze. >buick??? name one single aspect of design in which buick is innovative! > honda started to move away from egr in civics in 96 iirc - >reliability problems and the same effects can be achieved with valve >timing changes. Nice try. Search of honda odyssey and egr ... http://www.autopartsfair.com/honda-engine_parts/item-y2899_886416rhs. html >> (c) You are way off base. Look at any fuel:air curve from one of >> the many dyno places that supply it. You'll see air:fuel ratios of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >depending on other factors, but what percentage of a vehicle's life is >spent in that condition? That's what we were talking about! "high power" = Wide open throttle! As I mentioned, and a previous post of yours denied, rich AF are used at high power. Read my post again. Sheesh. >>buick??? name one single aspect of design in which buick is innovative! >> honda started to move away from egr in civics in 96 iirc - [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > http://www.autopartsfair.com/honda-engine_parts/item-y2899_886416rhs. > html what part of "civic" confuses you with "odyssey"? >>>(c) You are way off base. Look at any fuel:air curve from one of >>>the many dyno places that supply it. You'll see air:fuel ratios of [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Sheesh. what part of "the ecu can/does go rich on wot" is confusing you? and you don't run the engine like that all the time, so i say again, it won't smog at that level. sheesh. >what part of "civic" confuses you with "odyssey"? You in previous post: "exhaust gas used to be recirculated, but that's been dropped these days" My link shows replacement EGR valves for Honda Accords, Odysseys, and Civics. Which you claim they don't use. Hey, maybe it's a scam? >what part of "the ecu can/does go rich on wot" is confusing you? and >you don't run the engine like that all the time, so i say again, it >won't smog at that level. sheesh. You: " and in racing cars, fuel was dumped to cool piston crowns on throttle close, but excess fule in the combustion chamber with throttle open? no." So, fuel rich allowed on WOT, yes or no? First time you said "no". Now you say "can/does go rich on wot". You are correct the second time. Or was the first claim only about racing cars (and "fule")? >>what part of "civic" confuses you with "odyssey"? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and Civics. Which you claim they don't use. Hey, maybe it's a > scam? so how come my 2000 civic automatic has no egr valve? check one for yourself. >>what part of "the ecu can/does go rich on wot" is confusing you? and >>you don't run the engine like that all the time, so i say again, it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Now you say "can/does go rich on wot". You are correct the second > time. Or was the first claim only about racing cars (and "fule")? dude, back in the days of carburetted F1, fuel /was/ dumped into cylinders on /closed/ throttle to cool piston crowns. remember the flame-back in the exhausts? that's /not/ done any more due to consumption limits. regarding modern injected vehicles, whether the ecu goes rich depends on rpms. at low rpm's, the ecu goes rich to prevent flameout. but that's not necessary at high rpms. fly by wire systems are much more conservative with enrichment because throttle opening is contolled by the ecu, not the drivers foot so less flameout. >> If 15-30% of the fuel is not burned without adding acetone >> (otherwise, how would it add that much by simply better vaporizing [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > plastics in the fuel system. I'd hate to get great performance at the > expense of ruining the car. Airline pilots have to adjust fuel mixtures to be able to fly at lesser air densities. Otherwise the engine would run too lean. Cars soemtimes do need adjustment too if they operate at high altitudes. They can overheat when they arent set to the altitudes. I'm wondering how this would work in a CVCC engine. Perhaps the richer mix in the pre-combustion chamber would be too hot for the aluminum head?? Just my cautious thoughts. FWIW Steve > Hi, > I've been hearing alot about increased mileage and other benefits of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source > <><><><><><><><> > Hi, > I've been hearing alot about increased mileage and other benefits of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > <><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source > <><><><><><><><> One of the radio shows also said this only works with premium fuel...sounds more like a scam perpetuated by the fuel industry to sell more premium fuel. 96 VTEC 5 speed Accord |
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
|
©2008 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.