Acetone increases gas mileage?
Apr 6, 2005 | 09:42 AM
#21
Registered User
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,291
Likes: 0
From: 100 miles offshore as much as possible, & Springfield Oregon USA
Cost over the life of the engine is a key factor in things like turbos and superchargers as well. Has everyone forgotten that back in the early 80s everything seemed to have a turbo on it? Including Toyotas? By the end of the 80s they were almost all gone. Why? Because they drastically shortened engine life & required much more attentive maintenance. (The regional Toyota rep back then actually told us that warranty costs killed the turbos.) Then they went to superchargers. But those were never really popular because of cost - the potentially better efficiency didn't overcome the initial cost or the higher maintenance costs.
Nowadays these things are making a comeback because of improvements in computer controls. They can be made to work better and not destroy your engine in the process. But they still cost more than the benefits.
Nowadays these things are making a comeback because of improvements in computer controls. They can be made to work better and not destroy your engine in the process. But they still cost more than the benefits.
Apr 6, 2005 | 10:15 AM
#22
Guest
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
From: North Pole
There are many silly myths floating around the car industry to fool the average person. Another is that cold intake air improves mileage. NO. Warm air improves mileage.
I have rigorously tested fuels independently (with burns all over me) and am considered an authority on this important subject.
Can this get any better?
Apr 6, 2005 | 10:32 AM
#23
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
From: Scottsdale, AZ
From all the articles and research ive done, adding acetone or denatured alcohol acts as more of an octane booster. If i remember correctly acetone/denatured alcohol is suppose to be rated at 100 or was it 110 octane?!?! (dont quote me on that) and when added to gas you are able to increase the octane a few points depending on the ratio.
There have been countless arguements on gas octanes and whats best, and thats why people have such varying results.(ie weather, engine type, and such)
As far as my experiences go, acetone/denatured alcohol has work fored me in creasing performance a tad bit, but then again im also running 10psi of boost and can reap the benifits of higher octane.
Just my .02 cents
There have been countless arguements on gas octanes and whats best, and thats why people have such varying results.(ie weather, engine type, and such)
As far as my experiences go, acetone/denatured alcohol has work fored me in creasing performance a tad bit, but then again im also running 10psi of boost and can reap the benifits of higher octane.
Just my .02 cents
Apr 6, 2005 | 02:28 PM
#24
Registered User
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,291
Likes: 0
From: 100 miles offshore as much as possible, & Springfield Oregon USA
Quote:
There are many silly myths floating around the car industry to fool the average person. Another is that cold intake air improves mileage. NO. Warm air improves mileage.
Well, now I can see the "logic" in that statement. Cold air allows there to be more fuel in the mix and will make more power, sorta. yes. So warm air will cause less fuel to be dispensed to get the proper ratio and therefore you must be using less fuel. Don't get all confused with things like efficient combustion or putting down more go-pedal to make up the difference or stuff like that...
There are many silly myths floating around the car industry to fool the average person. Another is that cold intake air improves mileage. NO. Warm air improves mileage.
Well, now I can see the "logic" in that statement. Cold air allows there to be more fuel in the mix and will make more power, sorta. yes. So warm air will cause less fuel to be dispensed to get the proper ratio and therefore you must be using less fuel. Don't get all confused with things like efficient combustion or putting down more go-pedal to make up the difference or stuff like that...
Apr 6, 2005 | 02:29 PM
#25
Registered User
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 3,291
Likes: 0
From: 100 miles offshore as much as possible, & Springfield Oregon USA
Originally Posted by blink
From all the articles and research ive done, adding acetone or denatured alcohol acts as more of an octane booster. If i remember correctly acetone/denatured alcohol is suppose to be rated at 100 or was it 110 octane?!?! (dont quote me on that) and when added to gas you are able to increase the octane a few points depending on the ratio.
There have been countless arguements on gas octanes and whats best, and thats why people have such varying results.(ie weather, engine type, and such)
As far as my experiences go, acetone/denatured alcohol has work fored me in creasing performance a tad bit, but then again im also running 10psi of boost and can reap the benifits of higher octane.
Just my .02 cents
There have been countless arguements on gas octanes and whats best, and thats why people have such varying results.(ie weather, engine type, and such)
As far as my experiences go, acetone/denatured alcohol has work fored me in creasing performance a tad bit, but then again im also running 10psi of boost and can reap the benifits of higher octane.
Just my .02 cents
DING DING DING !
I think we have a winner!
Apr 6, 2005 | 02:52 PM
#26
Contributing Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,370
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by colsoncj
Working for a company that builds these things, and being in the automotive industry I can answer this one...
First these decrease the pumping losses, thereby increasing the efficiency and overall output of the motors. If you look at various foriegn automakers, and even some domestic, they are rapidly becoming more common (look at audi, just about every single motor has a turbo for these reasons). Second, they would be standard on every vehicle except that vehicle manufacturers don't have to use them to get the better fuel economy, so right now they're just offering them for the bonus of power. The more time passes, the more and more they will become standard. You can drop displacement, add boost, get better gas mileage, and equal power compared to a larger displaced less efficient motor. As for lag time, variable displacement turbos which are becoming more and more of the standard almost negate any lag time. and like previously said "the goal for cars is to put the cheapest stuff on there, and charge as much as you can for it." Sorry to hijack a little there and get on a tangent.
I wouldn't dare add that stuff to my truck, but I have used it as a cleaner.....
First these decrease the pumping losses, thereby increasing the efficiency and overall output of the motors. If you look at various foriegn automakers, and even some domestic, they are rapidly becoming more common (look at audi, just about every single motor has a turbo for these reasons). Second, they would be standard on every vehicle except that vehicle manufacturers don't have to use them to get the better fuel economy, so right now they're just offering them for the bonus of power. The more time passes, the more and more they will become standard. You can drop displacement, add boost, get better gas mileage, and equal power compared to a larger displaced less efficient motor. As for lag time, variable displacement turbos which are becoming more and more of the standard almost negate any lag time. and like previously said "the goal for cars is to put the cheapest stuff on there, and charge as much as you can for it." Sorry to hijack a little there and get on a tangent.
I wouldn't dare add that stuff to my truck, but I have used it as a cleaner.....
Its more about engine design....example...
My sisters Audi TT (turbocharged) - 225 HP 20/28mpg
My ex-neighbors mid life crisis Corvette LS6 6.0 Liter (n/a) - 400 HP 19/28mpg
I would compare the vette to an Audi with closer HP ratings but Audi's most power engine isnt turbo, isnt nearly as powerful, and dont get as good of gas milage.....I think their 340 HP v8 gets like 17/25mpg...But thats all beside the point, the point is I believe its more about engine design then turbo or N/A....
Apr 6, 2005 | 05:02 PM
#27
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
From: Halifax, N.S., Canada
isn't an gasoline combustion engine (piston type) most efficent when it RUNS AT THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE TEMP? The reason ceramic coatings and ceramic parts is sought after. And I also thought that the delta T (temp change) for fuel air and combustion temp is directly related to power output?
Just recall something of that nature going in my Thermo Dynamics classes.
So wouldn't COLD DAYS with HOT ENGINE make for best efficency, or in this case POWER.
Just my 5 cents
Just recall something of that nature going in my Thermo Dynamics classes.
So wouldn't COLD DAYS with HOT ENGINE make for best efficency, or in this case POWER.
Just my 5 cents
Apr 6, 2005 | 06:09 PM
#28
Contributing Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 2
From: Monett, MO (Springfield)
I can't remember my thermo class, but I think your right toyz.... my comment was made through an understanding of the otto cycle and where the losses originate due to design, a fair amount being pumping losses, corrected by boosting...
Apr 7, 2005 | 08:53 AM
#29
interesting link....
http://www.lubedev.com/smartgas/badfuel.htm
I'm running 2oz/10 gal right now.....will get back to this link....
http://www.lubedev.com/smartgas/badfuel.htm
I'm running 2oz/10 gal right now.....will get back to this link....
Apr 7, 2005 | 10:07 AM
#31
Guest
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
From: North Pole
There is not one valid reason to take anything seriously from that website either.
Informal style of writing at the 9th grade level, and a P.O. box in Minnesota does not establish credibility.
Informal style of writing at the 9th grade level, and a P.O. box in Minnesota does not establish credibility.
Louis LaPointe: We have a crisis of biblical proportions. Write your senators. Tell everybody these things.
Apr 7, 2005 | 11:07 AM
#32
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
From: Mountains outside of Boulder
Originally Posted by boyzWidToyz
isn't an gasoline combustion engine (piston type) most efficent when it RUNS AT THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE TEMP? The reason ceramic coatings and ceramic parts is sought after. And I also thought that the delta T (temp change) for fuel air and combustion temp is directly related to power output?
Just recall something of that nature going in my Thermo Dynamics classes.
So wouldn't COLD DAYS with HOT ENGINE make for best efficency, or in this case POWER.
Just my 5 cents
Just recall something of that nature going in my Thermo Dynamics classes.
So wouldn't COLD DAYS with HOT ENGINE make for best efficency, or in this case POWER.
Just my 5 cents
E=1-(Tc/Th)
where Tc is the temperature of the output and Th is the temperature of the input.
However, the ambient temperature doesn't really matter that much. what matters is what Th and Tc are at the point where useful work can be done. so Th is the temperature of the fuel just after it's ignited. and Tc is the temperature of the exhaust at the instant the exhaust valve opens up. The goal would be to design the engine such that all the fuel burns as quick as possible (gets you the biggest Th) and then get all the work out can out of it before it goes out the exhaust.
That's why turbos help efficiency. Using numbers i pulled off of a turbo diesel board where guys often run pyrometers, you can see that the turbo is actually pulling some more heat out of the exhaust and turning it into useful work.
exhaust temperature before the turbo while pulling a trailer 1200F
exhaust temperature after the turbo while pulilng a trailer 900F
convert those to absolute temperatures: 1200F->920K, 900F->750K. so the turbo alone is acting like a heat engine with maximum efficiency of
1-750/920 = 20%
which doesn't sound like alot, but without the turbo, that energy would have gone to waste anyway. for a typical diesel, the maximum efficiency of the engine is in the neighborhood of 50%. remember these efficiencies are the maximium you could get if you had no heat loss that wasn't being turned into work. but the fact that we have a cooling system in all engines, shows that there is indeed a bunch of heat that doesn't get turned into work. i don't know what the typical numbers are for gasoline engines, but i'm sure they're of the same magnitude.
Apr 7, 2005 | 11:25 AM
#33
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
From: Wake Forest, NC
Originally Posted by mike_d
yes you're basically right. the maximum efficiency for any heat engine is:
E=1-(Tc/Th)
where Tc is the temperature of the output and Th is the temperature of the input.
However, the ambient temperature doesn't really matter that much. what matters is what Th and Tc are at the point where useful work can be done. so Th is the temperature of the fuel just after it's ignited. and Tc is the temperature of the exhaust at the instant the exhaust valve opens up. The goal would be to design the engine such that all the fuel burns as quick as possible (gets you the biggest Th) and then get all the work out can out of it before it goes out the exhaust.
That's why turbos help efficiency. Using numbers i pulled off of a turbo diesel board where guys often run pyrometers, you can see that the turbo is actually pulling some more heat out of the exhaust and turning it into useful work.
exhaust temperature before the turbo while pulling a trailer 1200F
exhaust temperature after the turbo while pulilng a trailer 900F
convert those to absolute temperatures: 1200F->920K, 900F->750K. so the turbo alone is acting like a heat engine with maximum efficiency of
1-750/920 = 20%
which doesn't sound like alot, but without the turbo, that energy would have gone to waste anyway. for a typical diesel, the maximum efficiency of the engine is in the neighborhood of 50%. remember these efficiencies are the maximium you could get if you had no heat loss that wasn't being turned into work. but the fact that we have a cooling system in all engines, shows that there is indeed a bunch of heat that doesn't get turned into work. i don't know what the typical numbers are for gasoline engines, but i'm sure they're of the same magnitude.
E=1-(Tc/Th)
where Tc is the temperature of the output and Th is the temperature of the input.
However, the ambient temperature doesn't really matter that much. what matters is what Th and Tc are at the point where useful work can be done. so Th is the temperature of the fuel just after it's ignited. and Tc is the temperature of the exhaust at the instant the exhaust valve opens up. The goal would be to design the engine such that all the fuel burns as quick as possible (gets you the biggest Th) and then get all the work out can out of it before it goes out the exhaust.
That's why turbos help efficiency. Using numbers i pulled off of a turbo diesel board where guys often run pyrometers, you can see that the turbo is actually pulling some more heat out of the exhaust and turning it into useful work.
exhaust temperature before the turbo while pulling a trailer 1200F
exhaust temperature after the turbo while pulilng a trailer 900F
convert those to absolute temperatures: 1200F->920K, 900F->750K. so the turbo alone is acting like a heat engine with maximum efficiency of
1-750/920 = 20%
which doesn't sound like alot, but without the turbo, that energy would have gone to waste anyway. for a typical diesel, the maximum efficiency of the engine is in the neighborhood of 50%. remember these efficiencies are the maximium you could get if you had no heat loss that wasn't being turned into work. but the fact that we have a cooling system in all engines, shows that there is indeed a bunch of heat that doesn't get turned into work. i don't know what the typical numbers are for gasoline engines, but i'm sure they're of the same magnitude.
Apr 7, 2005 | 11:51 AM
#34
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
From: Mountains outside of Boulder
Originally Posted by 03TRDBlack
So what does any of this turbo talk have to do about using Acetone in your gas tank??
Apr 7, 2005 | 01:42 PM
#35
Contributing Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,370
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by mike_d
yes you're basically right. the maximum efficiency for any heat engine is:
E=1-(Tc/Th)
where Tc is the temperature of the output and Th is the temperature of the input.
However, the ambient temperature doesn't really matter that much. what matters is what Th and Tc are at the point where useful work can be done. so Th is the temperature of the fuel just after it's ignited. and Tc is the temperature of the exhaust at the instant the exhaust valve opens up. The goal would be to design the engine such that all the fuel burns as quick as possible (gets you the biggest Th) and then get all the work out can out of it before it goes out the exhaust.
That's why turbos help efficiency. Using numbers i pulled off of a turbo diesel board where guys often run pyrometers, you can see that the turbo is actually pulling some more heat out of the exhaust and turning it into useful work.
exhaust temperature before the turbo while pulling a trailer 1200F
exhaust temperature after the turbo while pulilng a trailer 900F
convert those to absolute temperatures: 1200F->920K, 900F->750K. so the turbo alone is acting like a heat engine with maximum efficiency of
1-750/920 = 20%
which doesn't sound like alot, but without the turbo, that energy would have gone to waste anyway. for a typical diesel, the maximum efficiency of the engine is in the neighborhood of 50%. remember these efficiencies are the maximium you could get if you had no heat loss that wasn't being turned into work. but the fact that we have a cooling system in all engines, shows that there is indeed a bunch of heat that doesn't get turned into work. i don't know what the typical numbers are for gasoline engines, but i'm sure they're of the same magnitude.
E=1-(Tc/Th)
where Tc is the temperature of the output and Th is the temperature of the input.
However, the ambient temperature doesn't really matter that much. what matters is what Th and Tc are at the point where useful work can be done. so Th is the temperature of the fuel just after it's ignited. and Tc is the temperature of the exhaust at the instant the exhaust valve opens up. The goal would be to design the engine such that all the fuel burns as quick as possible (gets you the biggest Th) and then get all the work out can out of it before it goes out the exhaust.
That's why turbos help efficiency. Using numbers i pulled off of a turbo diesel board where guys often run pyrometers, you can see that the turbo is actually pulling some more heat out of the exhaust and turning it into useful work.
exhaust temperature before the turbo while pulling a trailer 1200F
exhaust temperature after the turbo while pulilng a trailer 900F
convert those to absolute temperatures: 1200F->920K, 900F->750K. so the turbo alone is acting like a heat engine with maximum efficiency of
1-750/920 = 20%
which doesn't sound like alot, but without the turbo, that energy would have gone to waste anyway. for a typical diesel, the maximum efficiency of the engine is in the neighborhood of 50%. remember these efficiencies are the maximium you could get if you had no heat loss that wasn't being turned into work. but the fact that we have a cooling system in all engines, shows that there is indeed a bunch of heat that doesn't get turned into work. i don't know what the typical numbers are for gasoline engines, but i'm sure they're of the same magnitude.
I never heard of heat = energy in a gasoline engine, obviously heat is energy but I didnt think a hotter engine would benefit from this simple because fuel and air equally mixed will burn ALOT cooler then less fuel with more air....
A engine running hotter, higher air to fuel ratio will make the exhaust more hot, the heat in the exhaust its crucial to making the turbo work, ie. the exhaust will flow faster, thus spinning the turbo faster, thus making more power....so yes a hotter engine is more efficent as a by product of the heat since its using less fuel and more air, and with a turbo, the turbo is making more power....but then you run into a problem with the engine falling apart since its so hot....
I guess if they were to design an engine that could with stand those temps with some alloy that would probably cost a small fortune to buy then it would be more efficent.....But now we are back to saving money again, I'd pay for 3 dollar gas rather then have the new 70,000 dollar Honda Civic thats engine runs at 3000 degrees and gets 60mpg heheh
Apr 7, 2005 | 01:43 PM
#36
Contributing Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,370
Likes: 0
I think I contradicted myself like 5 times in that last post.....
So I guess in general you are correct a hotter engine due to running an odd afr will be more efficent...for as long as it lasted which wouldnt be very....
So I guess in general you are correct a hotter engine due to running an odd afr will be more efficent...for as long as it lasted which wouldnt be very....
Apr 7, 2005 | 05:26 PM
#37
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Re: the turbodiesel, the reason the egts are higher when pulling is that most don't get full boost for more than a second or two unless they are really working. When they are pulling hard at near full boost then more fuel is being burned to produce more heat.
And an EGT of 1200 is not a good thing for your motor.
And an EGT of 1200 is not a good thing for your motor.
Originally Posted by mike_d
yes you're basically right. the maximum efficiency for any heat engine is:
E=1-(Tc/Th)
where Tc is the temperature of the output and Th is the temperature of the input.
However, the ambient temperature doesn't really matter that much. what matters is what Th and Tc are at the point where useful work can be done. so Th is the temperature of the fuel just after it's ignited. and Tc is the temperature of the exhaust at the instant the exhaust valve opens up. The goal would be to design the engine such that all the fuel burns as quick as possible (gets you the biggest Th) and then get all the work out can out of it before it goes out the exhaust.
That's why turbos help efficiency. Using numbers i pulled off of a turbo diesel board where guys often run pyrometers, you can see that the turbo is actually pulling some more heat out of the exhaust and turning it into useful work.
exhaust temperature before the turbo while pulling a trailer 1200F
exhaust temperature after the turbo while pulilng a trailer 900F
convert those to absolute temperatures: 1200F->920K, 900F->750K. so the turbo alone is acting like a heat engine with maximum efficiency of
1-750/920 = 20%
which doesn't sound like alot, but without the turbo, that energy would have gone to waste anyway. for a typical diesel, the maximum efficiency of the engine is in the neighborhood of 50%. remember these efficiencies are the maximium you could get if you had no heat loss that wasn't being turned into work. but the fact that we have a cooling system in all engines, shows that there is indeed a bunch of heat that doesn't get turned into work. i don't know what the typical numbers are for gasoline engines, but i'm sure they're of the same magnitude.
E=1-(Tc/Th)
where Tc is the temperature of the output and Th is the temperature of the input.
However, the ambient temperature doesn't really matter that much. what matters is what Th and Tc are at the point where useful work can be done. so Th is the temperature of the fuel just after it's ignited. and Tc is the temperature of the exhaust at the instant the exhaust valve opens up. The goal would be to design the engine such that all the fuel burns as quick as possible (gets you the biggest Th) and then get all the work out can out of it before it goes out the exhaust.
That's why turbos help efficiency. Using numbers i pulled off of a turbo diesel board where guys often run pyrometers, you can see that the turbo is actually pulling some more heat out of the exhaust and turning it into useful work.
exhaust temperature before the turbo while pulling a trailer 1200F
exhaust temperature after the turbo while pulilng a trailer 900F
convert those to absolute temperatures: 1200F->920K, 900F->750K. so the turbo alone is acting like a heat engine with maximum efficiency of
1-750/920 = 20%
which doesn't sound like alot, but without the turbo, that energy would have gone to waste anyway. for a typical diesel, the maximum efficiency of the engine is in the neighborhood of 50%. remember these efficiencies are the maximium you could get if you had no heat loss that wasn't being turned into work. but the fact that we have a cooling system in all engines, shows that there is indeed a bunch of heat that doesn't get turned into work. i don't know what the typical numbers are for gasoline engines, but i'm sure they're of the same magnitude.
Apr 9, 2005 | 03:25 PM
#39
Contributing Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 3,556
Likes: 0
From: Edmonton
Originally Posted by colsoncj
I can't remember my thermo class, but I think your right toyz....
I'd say the efficiency is mostly done by engine design and ECU programing.
If you engine is designed to allow things to pass with little resistance, the engine is able to run more efficiently.
On the other hand, detonation comes from too much O2 in the cylinder, resulting in a shattered piston.
Therefore, too lean a mixture will creat too much of an explosion and the need for a rebuild/swap.
If there's a big explosion cause by there not being enough fuel, and the engines themselves not being strong enough...... then that's a programming problem along with a design flaw.
Go watch Chris Rock's "Bigger and Blacker". I think he summed it up best.
I'm only paraphrasing here, I'm saying it workd for word, but close enough to get the point.
"Nasa can send a shuttle around the moon, withstanding 10's of thousand's of degrees, and you mean to tell me that Cadillac can't make an Deville who's rear bumper don't fall off?"
Apr 9, 2005 | 06:04 PM
#40
Contributing Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,574
Likes: 1
From: El Paso, TX
And as we get back on topic here boys....
I've done a lot of checking on the web and it seems that acetone as an additive is starting to make a lot of stir. It also seems that if you've used B-44 or B-12 Chemtool, they're 20-30% acetone. Probably several of the other injector cleaners contain it as well.
I'm intrigued enough to try it, and have some in the lab, but I just got a new O2 sensor that I need to install on the '95. And then I need to burn a couple tanks to get a baseline. Could try it on the '99 though. It usually gets a ballpark 20 mpg during my wife's commutes during the week.
I've done a lot of checking on the web and it seems that acetone as an additive is starting to make a lot of stir. It also seems that if you've used B-44 or B-12 Chemtool, they're 20-30% acetone. Probably several of the other injector cleaners contain it as well.
I'm intrigued enough to try it, and have some in the lab, but I just got a new O2 sensor that I need to install on the '95. And then I need to burn a couple tanks to get a baseline. Could try it on the '99 though. It usually gets a ballpark 20 mpg during my wife's commutes during the week.
