Jump to content
CaddyInfo Cadillac Forum

Increase fuel milage


Bill K

Recommended Posts


Hmmm. I might have to try it to. I get about 13.5 mpg which is killing me. I'm not complaining...simply saying that if I can add 2ozs of very cheap acetone additive to the tank and increase mileage with no ill effects, than why not? This 13.5 that I speak of is around town, I get about 18-20mpg on the highway, I wonder if it will work or not.

Chris

Christopher Petro

94 sts

67 coupe de Ville

user posted image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definately would not use this, this stuff has the same impact that injector cleaner has, it WILL remove the shellac covering the fuel pump windings and the injector windings. He says it right in the article that it removes paint. This stuff is PERFECT for cleaning off the shellac before you solder the wires! Now I know he is only talking 2 or 3 ounces per 10 gallons, but over time who knows. Not for me at all...I will use 91/93, lighten my foot and keep her tuned up while gas it this high....

NOT TO MENTION, how friendly is it to O2 sensors, I did not see mention of that...

Bbobynski?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Below are comments from the Web site regarding engine parts:

No Issues with the Engine Parts

I have soaked carburetor parts in acetone for months and even years to see if there is any deterioration. Any parts made to run with gasoline will work with acetone just fine. I presently have parts soaking in 1, 2, 5, and 10 % acetone/gasoline mixes as well as just gasoline. That is 20 to 200 times too much just to be sure. The 30R7 rated parts are in perfect condition. All my tests have been run with Texaco gasoline. I tested the gas stations in my area to FIRST find the best gasoline BEFORE putting acetone in the tank. But I have no idea from a pragmatic view what other gasolines do except that when I attempt to use them, my MPG drops like a rock. So for purely monetary reasons, I run the best available gasoline. When my dyno is built this summer, I will test all the gasolines in my area and publish the results on the web. I hear from engineers out West that Chevron gas is very good. I used it and it was fine during trips to California. I attach more credence to engineers who report things of interest to me because of their training and knowledge of testing methods. You may want to look up Science and Testing Methods in my site.

This is a topic best left for Bbobysnki. Though I think I'm fairly certain he will reiterate what he has said in the past regarding fuel additives and caution us to stay away from acetone?

Just one more thought; I would hate to be around any of the Cadillac enthusiasts on this site who accidentally spill some of that stuff on their beloved Cadillac's and damage the paint. :unsure::o:blink::angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on! I didn't know the problems, but I had the problem issue figured out as I was reading the article.

Another tornado/slick 50 hybrid: There use to be a water injection system, injecting water in the carburator, claiming similar results.

If such a trick was so harmless, why hasn't it been incorperated in the fuel industry. Those who belive oil compaines keep it covered up have the same foresight as the autor of this article.

In a free captilolistic scieoty, someone would have cashed in on this a long time ago. It's just like selling anything else in a free scieoty. SOMEONE WOULD HAVE ALREADY CASHED IN ON THE HUGE MARKET, SELLING BLENDED FUEL AT THE PUMP!!!!!!

This is a major common sense issue, and I wise person would leave acetone in the acetone can, not in the gas can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....

Another tornado/slick 50 hybrid:  There use to be a water injection system, injecting water in the carburator, claiming similar results....

Introducing moisture works, but not necessarily for fuel economy.

Moisture injection worked well for short bursts on military radial (piston) engines. Standard hot-day procedure with R3350s was a 'wet takeoff' that pumped a metered water spray for increased torque during that critical 30 second take-off roll.

The cooling affect introduced a more dense fuel / air mixture intake cycle charge.

Ever notice an improvement / difference in automobile engine performance during rainy weather?

Jim

Drive your car.

Use your cell phone.

CHOOSE ONE !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Ever notice an improvement / difference in automobile engine performance during rainy weather?

Ya JimD,

My tires won't hook up in the rain!

Runs like crazy, I tell ya!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the idea of water injection increasing power is false.

The example with the aircraft engine is that the particular takeoffs were at an altitude-density that was lower or greater than what the engine was rated at so the water injection made up for the (unavailable) higher octane fuel that would be required. This is not too unusual in piston aircraft engines as they are optimized (spark advance and compression ratio) for higher altitude operation...since they spend most of their time at higher altitudes. But, for takeoff, at relatively "low" altitude, they need higher octane fuel or water injection to prevent engine damage due to detonation. Once at altitude, where they are calibrated correctly, the water injection is no longer needed.

That explaines piston aircraft but what about jets? I recall just before I started dispatching, the early DC-8's aka "water wagons" used water injection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AND, From that same link provided in the first post, hit the "HOME" tab. Just two articles above the one claiming a 15% improvement, is one stating a fuel mileage REDUCTION in a Honda using acetone. Of course the writers are quick to blame "too rich a mixture" for the problem.

Never underestimate the amount of a persons greed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:blink: There were a BUNCH of new words and concepts in that paragraph bbobyski, but your explanation was clear. This just give me one more reason to white knuckle take-offs, wondering if the water tank for COOLING the BURN was filled up, leaked dry, clogged or frozen... :lol:

Recently I was on a 727, kicked back chillin out looking out the window when I glanced at the engine and hydraulic oil or FUEL was streaming down the side of the engine and flying off the back at the outlet, rather quickly I might add... OMG.. :blink: Needless to say, my mind is racing and I can't get this out of my head! I slip the stewardess a note to give to the captain telling him of the oil leak, which of course gets EVERYONES attention in the area. She comes back and very nicely says, OH thats normal on 727's...... We LAND, while I am still SEATED, about 10 mechanics swarmed all over the engine, I sat there with my mouth open :blink: Normal fuel/oil leakage! :unsure: With the quality of mechanics that I see on the GROUND, I am always wondering about maintenance and who did it..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:blink: There were a BUNCH of new words and concepts in that paragraph bbobyski, but your explanation was clear. This just give me one more reason to white knuckle take-offs, wondering if the water tank for COOLING the BURN was filled up, leaked dry, clogged or frozen... :lol:

Not to worry Mike. Early DC-8's were the last to use water injection that I am aware of. Most of those are parked in the desert now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, the idea of water injection increasing power is false.

The example with the aircraft engine is that  the particular takeoffs were at an altitude-density that was lower or greater than what the engine was rated at so the water injection made up for the (unavailable) higher octane fuel that would be required.  This is not too unusual in piston aircraft engines as they are optimized (spark advance and compression ratio) for higher altitude operation...since they spend most of their time at higher altitudes. But, for takeoff, at relatively "low" altitude, they need higher octane fuel or water injection to prevent engine damage due to detonation.  Once at altitude, where they are calibrated correctly, the water injection is no longer needed.

That explaines piston aircraft but what about jets? I recall just before I started dispatching, the early DC-8's aka "water wagons" used water injection.

Jet engines are usually limited at a power rating where the hot section temps reach a critical level. More fuel could be poured in but the engine would "melt". The water injection cools the burn and allows more fuel to be injected/consumed thus more power or thrust is made. It is only used for takeoff due to the mass penalty of hauling around a large tank of water in the air. So...the water injection simply cools the jet engine internal parts to prevent damage to the hot section at power ratings above what would be allowed without the water injection.

Since F=MA the jet engine thrust is equal to the acceleration of the material going thru it and the mass of the material. Adding water also adds mass to the ejecta thus adding some more thrust. Burning more fuel also adds to the mass of the ejecta which adds more thrust/power. The main gain is from the extra fuel accelerating the ejecta to an even higher rate and the increase in the mass of the ejecta is secondary.

And you picked this up where, Guru?

The Kettering JPL Institute? ;)

'93 STS.. opened, dropped, wide...fast.

user posted image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah...just a stray tidbit that I picked up reading somewhere, sometime. I knew that it would come in handy one day...LOL LOL

Kinda like those geology handbooks...? ;):lol:

'93 STS.. opened, dropped, wide...fast.

user posted image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike your story about the 727 brings this event to mind. About 15 years ago on my first and last time I went on a jet I was very uneasy. I do not remember what size it was on my trip to Florida but it had a mechanical problem. As a Hydraulic mechanic I very well know the sound of a hydraulic pump gone bad. I was over the wing and there was a pump wineing so loud and it was gurgaling or ( cavatating ) as it's called, so bad that I too had to speak up. I quietly informed the steurt and she told me not to worry" it's been doing that for the last two stops". OMG. She said there are back up systems if it failed all together. Somehow that did not make me feel any better. I just do not like or want to fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys worry too much. Every system on the aircraft has double and sometimes tripple redundency built in. Sit back, put the headsets on so you don't hear the noises, shut the shades so you don't see the leaks and have a drink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys worry too much. Every system on the aircraft has double and sometimes tripple redundency built in. Sit back, put the headsets on so you don't hear the noises, shut the shades so you don't see the leaks and have a drink.

Or 2!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...