Chemically modify the gasoline.

[tradosaurus]

Gasalene,
Go peddle your elixir somewhere else.
We aren't buying.
In the old days the sheriff would just escort your wagon full of tonic out of town.

[Jay2TheRescue]

Yeah, we're not buying because with each post he makes, he reveals more & more about what he doesn't know. I would have banned him a while ago, but this has been somewhat entertaining.

[IndyFetch]

Jay is right. You also have to adjust the fuel usage at idle. It was inaccurate, reading several mpg high or low until I did this.

High 40 mpg range is not unheard of in that vehicle. We have a guest with an early 2000s SE-R (2.5 liter) that averaged 40 or so. I think any additive costs more than it saves.

[Ford Man]

Originally Posted by Jay2TheRescue

#1. You obviously know nothing about the Scangauge. You set the % variance with each fuel fillup. The fact that you don't know this means your Scangauge is not calibrated/setup properly for your vehicle, and the readings you're getting cannot be trusted to have any resemblance of accuracy.

#2. The Scangauge is not sold as a precision instrument. A variance of +/- 3 MPG on a properly setup and calibrated Scangauge is considered normal. The only way you can get it as accurate as possible, is to use the same pump every time, pulled up the same direction, and always stop at the first click. Variations in how sensitive a pump clicks off can easily make what appears to be a 3 MPG difference, but it all evens out when you look at tank averages over time.

My thoughts exactly. There are many variables that can effect the accuracy of the Scan Gauge. Stop and go consisting of lots of idling, calibrating on a tank which was mostly highway then on the next tank doing lots of short hops, temperature conditions, wet vs. dry roads, engine tune, changing to a new set of tires, the amount of coasting you do since most modern cars have deceleration fuel cut off (DFCO) where if the car is in gear at RPM's usually above about 1100-1200 it uses NO GAS. With my old set of tires which were 75% worn out it wasn't uncommon for me to get 45-50 MPG on the highway in my '97 Escort wagon, http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/13657.shtml / http://www.gassavers.org/garage/viewgaslog/1711 since putting a new set of tires on with more tread which increased rolling resistance about the best I've done under the same conditions is about 40-42 MPG. The way I fill my car I always fill to the cap with the filler cap on the high side of the car therefore no trapped air pockets where fuel can't get. I suggest you read your OWNERS MANUAL for the Scan Gauge and learn a little bit about your equipment. It sounds like you're relying on an instrument that may or may not be calibrated correctly for your vehicle and you're not doing the actual miles/gallons calculations. Most/all states require fuel pumps be checked for calibration at least once a year and in some states, maybe all there's a sticker placed on the pump from the state office that performs the weights and measurements testing and has information on how to contact them if you suspect the pumps are not calibrated correctly. Gas stations are also subject to a surprise visit from weights and measurements at any time.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...252708319.html

[bobc455]

I guess my issue is this:

Originally Posted by Gasalene

With the introduction of the oxygen sensor, I now had the perfect system ... always power timing. OBD-ll saved the day!

Not really. There is a built-in timing table, and when the knock sensor (not the oxygen sensor) detects knock, it backs the timing off briefly and then tries to re-establish timing to the original setpoint (unless it detects knock again). However it won't advance the timing to be more advanced than what is in the timing table.

Perhaps part of this entire system is that somehow the crank sensor has to be mechanically moved 5-10 degrees to fool the complete timing table?

I'm not a chemist, but I'm sure there are ways to decrease the % of wasted/unused chemical energy (such as controlling droplet size like with acetone). And there are certainly ways to slow the flame front (addition of toluene or xylene can accomplish this quite easily). But I can't comment on the effects of naphthalene without having tried it or without a chemist's background.

But Mr. Gasalene does seem to have a proven track record with a fuel savings of about 25%+. (Of course I haven't looked at the cost of naphthalene and I would also wonder why some other chemist hasn't tried to use naphthalene before...)

-BC

[Ford Man]

Bobc 455, you and I are usually on the same page with our thoughts, but this time I have to disagree. I've seen no proof of better mileage. Using a Scan Gauge as the only means for checking mileage is unreliable and from reading his last post probably a Scan Gauge that isn't even calibrated to his car/engine/driving habits. No fuel log showing a baseline mileage then improved mileage using naphthalene. He's like many others who come to this and other fuel savings forums claiming I got a huge increase in mileage by doing/using this product when 99% of the time the product does absolutely nothing. I think about everyone on this forum has at sometime or the other tried this gadget or that gadget trying to improve mileage without any success, I know I have. Several years ago I tried a fuel vaporizer since at the time the company offered your money back within 60 if not satisfied. I hooked it up and spent time adjusting it according to their instructions until about a 1 week prior to the money back promise was about to expire and took it off and sent it back to the company. Apparently I wasn't the only one returning the system, soon they stopped offering money back. I've also tried using acetone in amounts 1-3oz/10 gallons of gas as a fuel additive in my '88 Escort with no improvement in mileage. I never tried it in my better cars/engines. If I had technology that was safe for the engine, environmentally safe and would save 25% of the fuel used in the US/world I'd be proving to others not just making claims. I'd also be marketing it as a consumer based product making millions/billions instead of trying to sell the secret to anyone and everyone for a measly $50. Call me greedy, but this is just basic good business. I'm not saying with absolute certainty that naphthalene doesn't increase mileage, but I have my doubts. Before spending my money on it I'd need PROOF not PROMISES. With proof it worked and saved more money than the product cost to make I'd pay $50. for the information even if I didn't use it in anything but my '88 Escort to see what effects it had on the engine.

[bobc455]

Even if miscalibrated, he has a very significant differential between the "A" and "B" scenarios. If his scangauge was showing 140MPG and 180MPG I might not believe the actual numbers, but the % difference (with supposedly a fairly high number of samples) is statistically significant.

And with the Scangauges claimed error of +/-3 MPG, and he's seeing a difference of much greater than that, that discrepancy is not enough to discount his claims.

Now maybe he's lying too, but since he's not trying to sell the naphthalene (the key to his system), it seems like there isn't much for him to gain by fabricating this.

I could say that I don't believe George Washington ever really existed since I haven't met him myself, but there are other forms of proof which are acceptable. And since he's offering his system for us to try, he has done the things required for credibility thus far.

Now if someone tries his system and sees no improvement after A-B-A-B testing, then we can say for sure that his system is bunk.

You want to hear an outlandish claim? I once removed the coil wire from my Buick, forgot that I'd done that, then driven it. WITH NO COIL WIRE. I've worked in industry a long time and seen some thing that are completely counter intuitive, and I would have said were impossible, but cannot be denied when viewed with one's own eyes. And I'm no idiot.

"Teach thy mind to say 'I don't know' and thou will progress"

Having said all that, I don't have the time or inclination to test his system right now. But I wouldn't tell someone not to try it, if they were so inclined. (It's too bad, because I probably have a perfect test vehicle for this and do tons of driving and keep close tabs on my mileage...)

-BC

[Jay2TheRescue]

The key is that +/- 3 MPG is for a Scangauge that's properly setup and calibrated. If its not properly setup the variance can be much more.

[tradosaurus]

Uh oh. Looks like Gasalene got to bobc455.