Acetone

[MetroMPG]

The most valid test is A-B-A, one immediately after the other, in the exact same conditions. That's why testing fuel/oil additives is so difficult. It's easy to add something to the fuel, pretty hard to take it out to return to the baseline condition.

[ELF]

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/524517...r_gas_mileage/

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by SVOboy

I'm not an engineer either, but I think his writings are very far off the mark. If you read through them carefully you will not things that are blatantly not true and/or completely misleading.

It's far from an engineering report :P Claims are qualitative, many without a reason. Why would acetone work with some brands of fuels and not others? This makes me think that your problem isn't that you're not using acetone... It's that you're using a poorly maintained fuel station

Big Oil and the American Car Manufacturers and others do NOT want you to know.

An engineering report would never say anything like that - it destroys your credibility telling everyone you're no longer an objective observer (that's not engineering - that's scientific method). Again, I stand by this. If a single oil company could claim "Our gas may give you 35% more FE reliably" - imagine how quickly their customer base will grow.

This reverse test method will be repeated in the spring with new oil and some other additives in the acetone that I am working on.

So, what this person just said is that they are posting their results BEFORE completion of their testing.

A number of things must be done and these are outlined in other SmartGas articles. The right spark plugs and wires. The right oil. The right thermostat. The right oil filter, etc. Find the best gasoline station in your area. THEN we add a little acetone to the fuel. Or these items may be done concurrently. You will not get good mileage by putting good acetone in bad gas. At least we never have. So that is the methodology we regularly use.

No mention of driving technique.

The pattern seems to be that engineers and researchers are nearly all in favor of acetone while mechanics are split or afraid to try for reasons based on myths.

Obviously, this person hasn't searched through academia - said engineering and researchers' reports

Look at what happened in Brazil. Millions of engines and fuel systems were ruined in that country by alcohol.

Utterly False. Perhaps if they were using methanol - maybe. but they're not and it took them over 20 years to do the switch. But there's no hype in their media about mass engine damage - nor is there any documentation that mass engine damage has occurred. Respect for that article = 0. That person is playing off ignorance now - why didn't s/he say ethanol instead of alcohol. Because yes, there are alcohols that are hazardous to AL. Hell, ethanol is hazardous to fiberglass (so don't be putting it in fiberglass fuel tanks - you boaters :P).

Well how do we know areo mods work?

A-B-A testing - literature in scientific journals - repeatability of results.

Here is a big question... Why are the results not repeatable across all engines (lets even narrow it down to fuel injected). I ask this because part of verification of a result is the repeatability of a result by others in the community. If someone else, following your method, can't repeat it - it's not a result.

When that happens, you're asked to review your results and search for sources of error or external factors that could have influenced your measurements. The key is: A measurement is not a result (yet).


--------
Please don't get me wrong - I am willing to test this. But, we all must agree on a viable way to test. Those that claim it works must agree to the testing conditions. And then it must be a long term test using multiple makes/models in different climates (no worries, the statistics of the data will show how temperature effects it).

Again, I'm bashing on the article and the claims it's making without support.

Then, we need to figure out why it works. Honestly, I'm not satisfied with the atomization explanation and I've found not academic/scientific journal that supports that claim. Hell, one web site claimed that it was the increase in octane and higher octane means cleaner burn I'll even go as far as going surface tension testing (which I have done in the past and I can easily repeat - it's not hard at all).

But to be honest, I'm not so sure a long term test would do any good.... I suspect that it's just going to be lost through the evap system

[MetroMPG]

A number of things must be done and these are outlined in other SmartGas articles. The right spark plugs and wires. The right oil. The right thermostat. The right oil filter, etc. Find the best gasoline station in your area. THEN we add a little acetone to the fuel. Or these items may be done concurrently. You will not get good mileage by putting good acetone in bad gas. At least we never have. So that is the methodology we regularly use.

Another example of failure to understand proper methodology - if he's suggesting you tune up your car, switch thermostats & gas stations, and add acetone, how can you isolate which factor influenced the results?

Of course, it may just be a case of unclear writing, and the author may be trying to say that you should do all the tune up items at once, to gain a baseline, and THEN change another variable (acetone).

[zpiloto]

It's amazing that this comes up over and over again. Acetone really seems to be a YMMV additive. This is one of those subjects that never wants to die. But here's some more reading for you. It's just a search of this site for the discussion so far.

[GasSavers_Phoenix]

Ouch...I guess trying to get involved in an emotionally charged acetone discussion for my first post was setting myself up a bit... but damn!

Anyway, before I make anymore suggestions, could anyone explain what kind of test could be devised to prove or disprove acetone? MetroMPG pointed out that a return to baseline would be needed to validate the test... What other complications exist that make this issue more difficult to find consensus?

I to would like to help with this test but will need a little coaching in order to avoid a novices' errors.

One more thing, what did trebuchet03 mean by this: "I'm not so sure a long term test would do any good.... I suspect that it's just going to be lost through the evap system"

[zpiloto]

You can do like I did and dump it into someones car with out telling them and see what happens to there mileage.

[MetroMPG]

Hey Pheonix - don't worry about it.

I'm not sure if Trebuchet was suggesting we lose fuel to evaporation if the tank isn't used up quickly? We'll have to wait until he chimes in again. I was under the impression modern cars have closed fuel systems.

It does raise the general issue of tank-to-tank testing again, and it bears repeating: there's too much variability in tank-to-tank testing to be able to draw firm conclusions from changes made, unless the effect is likely to be very big.

There are very few drivers who could track their fuel consumption - without making ANY changes to the car - and not see a significant amount of variability in their results.

That's what makes tank-to-tank testing questionable.

[MetroMPG]

Z: that's funny.

[GasSavers_Phoenix]

Yeah, I never felt like I was getting anywhere with tank-to-tank...(then I discovered the Internet, and scangauge, and the the fact that almost everything I had been trying to "discover" as to having an effect on FE had already been done for me with refreshingly dedicated precision and objectivity...and with published results to boot!)

So, being barely past the tailgate up or down question, acetone seemed like a nicely inexpensive and easy next step, especially after dropping a good chunk of my new tire money on a Scangauge instead. But the wildly disparate claims, the warnings over fuel system and/or engine damage, and especially all the heated debate, scared me out of just dumping it in the tank. This all brings me here to my next set of questions:

What is the lowdown on fuel system and/or engine damage? Isn't acetone the main ingredient in some type of commonly-found-in-the-gas-station engine maintenance fuel additive?(fuel injector cleaner?) And if so I assume that adding a few ounces to ten gallons of fuel can't possibly have a short term effect (I guess we might start asking questions about long term effects once the results are in)

As far as the A-B-A testing, I can see why getting that second A would be very desirable, but is it necessary in order to get the test off the ground? Would the results from a first round of A-B tests with multiple makes/models in different climates it be significant enough to prove verifiable and repeatable effect?

And lastly, if the A-B tests are convincing enough, maybe as second round test (or as the only test if people generally disagree with the validity of the idea of an A-B first round test) we could feel justified in dropping the bucks on one of those fuel additive injection devices (or as Peakster suggested, utilizing a duel fuel tank set up) and easily get an A-B-A test to neatly tie up the lose ends?

Yes? No? Go to hell? I'm ready for it