# Ideas, tips and tricks to get extra mpg out of a vehicle



## cobb (Feb 3, 2006)

What ideas do you guys have to get more fuel economy out of a car or truck? Besides getting it towed everywhere or pushed to its destination? 

I think we all already know about inflating your tires to the proper pressure, gettting a tune up, clean air filter, carrying around only what you need no extra junk or weight in your car, no jack rabbit starts and to coast to a stop light incase you can hit the green before you stop. Then the myth busters showed to leave your trucks tail gate up and to drive with the windows up and AC off. 

What about the computer chip upgrades for better performance? I understand those also offer an economy mode? 

What about lower resistant tires? 
Taller tires? Are taller tires good for less rolling resistance?
Higher rear end final gear ratios? 

I was reading in a sign industry magazine where if you drive a truck for your job and do not tow, you can use a higher final drive to get up to 5 more mpg. Then the important of using OD, of course i hope everyone uses that. 

What about reducing the capacity of your engine? Removing the push rods to a few cylinders in your multi cylinder V block engine to turn off a few cylinders. (Assuming you use push rods, unplug the injector if it has port injection)

What about using or making a body part for the front of your car or truck to make it more aerodynamic? Anyone thought to take a piece of lexan and screw it to the top radiator support and curve it down to your bumper of your truck or car that has a blunt square front end to make it a bit more aerodynamic? 

What about those sport wings you see on the rear of cars? Fiber glass and carbon fiber hoods, fenders, doors, etc?

These were just a few ideas off the top of my head.


----------



## MScottz (Feb 3, 2006)

I'm not sure how smoothly your engine is gonna run if you start disabling cylinders on it. It's not designed to run that way, and it's sure as heck not timed to run that way!


----------



## Lightmeup (Feb 3, 2006)

There's a semi-cult movement out there that claims a small amount of acetone added to your gas when you fill up does wonders for the mileage. You can Google up a ton of info about it.

LMU


----------



## Samuel (Feb 3, 2006)

http://www.tornado-fuelsaver.tv/?so...tornado fuel&gclid=CKfT2tLK_YICFQJnGAodMWVLog

JUST KIDDING! 

"What about lower resistant tires? 
Taller tires? Are taller tires good for less rolling resistance?
Higher rear end final gear ratios?"

IIRC, the skinnier and higher pressure your tires, the less rolling resistance (e.g. road race bike tires). Also, it is my belief that, all else being equal, taller/bigger tires = larger moments of inertia. If you make that type of change, you May lose mpg in stop and go (around town) and gain mpg in constant high speed (freeway). Changing gear ratios (changing overall wheel/tire size can have the similar but less effect) may also be a little tricky - if you change something, it may not be an optimal match for the output of your engine. IIRC, the higher the rear end, the more the engine will rev at a given speed (but I could be remembering that backwards).

Anyway, YMMV (pun intended)...


----------



## drizzle (Feb 3, 2006)

Use your cruise control at every opportunity that you safely can. With some careful anticipation I can use it in heavy urban freeway traffic as long as it's not stop and go. I don't use it in potentially slick surfaces, like the first light rain after a dry period, as I've been warned that the wheels could break loose and you would be out of control before you could react.

That mythbusters advice is not very helpful. If it's hot out you're not going to keep your windows up *and* keep the A/C off. I assume the show was about which is better, windows up & A/C on, or windows down & A/C off. I would imagine the answer to that would depend on the vehicle and driving conditions.


----------



## cobb (Feb 3, 2006)

Well, what a response. No one here tinkers with their car to get every last bit of distance out of their fuel? ANyone with a manual car rigged up a kill switch to kill the ICE on a car with manual tranny and kill it while slowing or in stop/go traffic? 

I think quite a few manufactures have experitmented with engine management systems that would cut off a few cylinders for crusing, using all 6 or 8 for acceleration.


----------



## raggie33 (Feb 3, 2006)

perhaps disconect the injecters on a fe cyliders but cod d i wont do it if i was you it isnt good for car my freind


----------



## Flying Turtle (Feb 3, 2006)

Whenever I can I try to follow some advice from an old car magazine. Imagine there are eggs under your accelerator and brake pedals, and only by applying gentle pressure will they stay unbroken. This is the best way to improve economy without modifications.

Geoff


----------



## AngelEyes (Feb 3, 2006)

Wind up windows, turn OFF aircon, remove those wings/spoliers, tow bars, roof racks. Those can add up to 10% of fuel consumption , i read somewhere. The wings and spoilers (and aerodymanic body kits) are to help high speed (> 65mph) stability and pretty much useless in town/city driving (and in fact adds aerodynamic drag instead). A stick shift is more fuel efficient than an auto. Larger diameter wheels will add weight. Wash your car to remove gunk under the car and wheel arches. Wax the car to have a nice smooth surface for air to flow over. These minor stuff add up. Good luck.


----------



## jkuo13 (Feb 3, 2006)

Heh, I like that eggs under the pedal trick. I'm going to have to remember that one.

I was just going to say that the easiest thing to do would be to adjust your driving habits. i.e. Don't do hard accelerations and stops all the time. Anticipate needing to stop so you can coast to a stop rather than slamming on the brakes (and wasting gas).

As for the mythbusters driving with the A.C. vs. the windows, they did that test all wrong. They didn't drive fast enough to get to the point where turning on the A.C. is more efficient than rolling down the windows.


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 3, 2006)

The LLR tires (low rolling resistance) give you 5 - 10 % MPG increase.

The mythbusters report was incomplete. At freeway speeds, the increased drag from open windows uses more power than the AC. AT speeds below 45 MPH, the open windows take less power than the average AC.

There is a simple device that monitors intake manifold pressure and lights a light when there is a strong vacuum. The idea is that a strong vacuum indicates a throttle that's open more than necessary. Even though that may not always be valid, it does teach you to accelerate gently.

The thing about coasting to a stop works with all cars. It tends to make you take your foot off the gas earlier so you save gas that way too. I tend to coast to a stop whenever there are no cars behind me, letting off the gas up to many hundreds of feet before the light.

Daniel


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 3, 2006)

Don't take off a spoiler unless you know why it's there. On the Prius that silly looking spoiler creates the "phantom tail" that helps the car achieve it it's slick .26 coefficient of drag. At slow speeds (under 45) the effect is negligable to nothing. At freeway speeds it makes the car closer to that ideal teardrop shape, increasing milage.

On some cars the spoiler is simply there for visual impact. You have to know which is which before you start to change things.

The "performance enhancing" computer chips claim to know the engine better than teh manufacturer. They often get "better" performance or milage by ignoring some of the anti pollution techniques that the manufacturer has to implement. They are illeagal in California, since they defeat the pollution controls.

Daniel


----------



## JasonC8301 (Feb 3, 2006)

As said above, DO NOT jack rabbit. I watched my MPG go from 19mpg one tank, to 16 mpg the next tank (well also add in the added weight of hauling stuff around.) I keep the reciepts from ALL my gas fillings and keep track of MPG. I average about 21.8 MPG in a 2005 Mazda Tribute with I-4 engine (2.3 liter Duratec.) This is based on my driving 15,000+ miles in 8 months and using ~628 gallons of gas (I will get the exact figures when I get home.) Most is highway though, don't drive in the city too often. I do the best thing; take public tranist. 

$4 round trip for mass transit at ~3 1/2 hours round trip. Driving to school is $48 for parking (~14 hours), ~$14 for tolls, then add in gas costs at $2.65 a gallon (35 miles round trip, so thats about $5 in gas.) That brings the total to approx. $67 dollars for one day at school. Is it worth it? Possibly, I would save an two hours because driving takes approx. an hour and a half round trip. But do I make $31.50 an hour to warrant the extra cost? NOPE. LOL. 

Regular maintaince also works well. Tire pressure, oil changes, keep extra weight out, and other things that don't come to mind right now.

If you drive a Suburban, Expedition, Excursion, Tahoe, or any other large type SUV, even gas guzzling sports cars... don't even start with complaining about gas, LOL.

Jason


----------



## twentysixtwo (Feb 3, 2006)

I used to work in fuel economy. Here are some easy things:

1) Run your tires at their max pressure. If you're in Texas in the summer, back off a few pounds, but otherwise run it at what's listed as max on the sidewall. Worth 1-2 mpg

2) Take everything out of the car that you don't absolutely have to have. That extra 2 quarts of oil, gallon of antifreeze and gallon of washer fluid? Keep it in the garage. Worth 2-3%

3) Make sure your air filter is clean. Worth up to 5% if you really had a crudded up filter to start with.

4) Take any extra crap off - spoilers, bug deflectors, double wipers, etc. Depends on what you had.

5) Run a lower weight oil - ideally 5W20 or 5W30. Worth 2-3%

6) If you drive a manual, lug, lug, lug. That is, shift very early. Hard to say what this is worth.

7) If you can stand it, drive like your grandma. Slow starts and slow top speed. You'd be amazed how much better mileage you can get at 55-60 mph instead of 75-80 mph

8) If you have a pickup, get a tonneau cover or cap. NEVER DRIVE WITH YOUR GATE DOWN AND IF YOU HAVE AN "AIR GATE" THROW IT AWAY. Gate up with no tonneau cover can be 2-3% better than with the gate down, an air gate can be as much as 5% worse. I've had numerous arguments and all I can say is I also used to work in aerodynamics and there are multiple SAE papers which support me on this.

9) If it's an option, get a taller rear end. That is, a numerically lower rear axle ratio.

10) Never buy gasahol or gas with ethanol in it. Ethanol has half the specific energy of gas, so a 10% gasahol mix means you'll get an automatic 5% hit in mileage. 

That's all I could come up with off the top of my head. Recalibrating the engine is not something I would recommend unless you know what you are doing.


----------



## cobb (Feb 3, 2006)

My dad used a vacuum meter on one of his cars and tried to keep vacuum at highest setting by carefully accelerating. Of course hiw VW Rabbit had the idiot light to tell you when to shift, but if you followed it you ended up wearing the engine out quicker from lugging it down all the time.


----------



## twentysixtwo (Feb 3, 2006)

I too was totally miffed with that Mythbusters segment. It was just plain stupid. First off, they did the comparison at 45, which is nowhere near the 70-80 I see every day on the highway. Second of all, you would need to have more than a single run of each vehicle to get anything near a valid comparison.


----------



## Big_Ed (Feb 4, 2006)

I use a vacuum guage on my '56 Olds. I bought it at JC Whitney. They are also called MPG meters or gas saver meters, among other things. It's really amazing how just a small toe touch on the gas pedal makes the needle jump on one of those guages. With the help of my MPG meter, I've managed to get 21 MPG (highway) out of a mostly stock 324 V8 with 4 BBL carb. Not bad for a 50 year old 2-ton shoebox. For some reason, it gets better mileage at 70-75 mph versus 55 mph. I guess the engine breathes better at the higher rpm. In city driving, it's another story. 16 mpg no matter how I drive. I'd recommend driving in the country as much as possible, avoiding city driving if you have the choice.


----------



## greg_in_canada (Feb 4, 2006)

twentysixtwo said:


> I too was totally miffed with that Mythbusters segment. It was just plain stupid. First off, they did the comparison at 45, which is nowhere near the 70-80 I see every day on the highway. Second of all, you would need to have more than a single run of each vehicle to get anything near a valid comparison.


 
They had a follow-up show where they admitted both tests were correct. There is a cross-over point and their first test was above it and the second below it. So at higher speeds windows up and AC on is correct. At lower speeds AC off and windows open is better.

Greg


----------



## BatteryCharger (Feb 4, 2006)

Use synthetic oil where ever you can. My Tahoe showed a 3hp increase on the dyno when I switched to Amsoil in the differentials and transfer case. That of course proves a significant decrease in friction and could only lead to an increase in MPG. (though I try not to measure MPG because it's horrible either way  )


----------



## markdi (Feb 4, 2006)

If your car has an automatic transmission 

put the car in netural at stop lights etc.

puts less of a load on engine.


----------



## Lightmeup (Feb 4, 2006)

markdi said:


> If your car has an automatic transmission
> 
> put the car in netural at stop lights etc.
> 
> puts less of a load on engine.


You may be right, but it also illegal in many states, IL being one of them. The reason is that if you need to quickly accelerate to avoid an accident or something, you may have problems shifting back into gear fast enough.

LMU


----------



## cobb (Feb 4, 2006)

Yeah, I think putting the car in nutral is not a safe idea and could lead to a traffic infraction. Something about the vehicle not being in control or something if i remember right. 

I was just wondering about things, assuming cars are not designed that well now to get more mpg. I may end up with a gas hog for first car and thought i would try some stuff to save gas. From my own limited research it seems higher gears and being easy on the gas, using optimun speed on highway is about best you can do. 

I still think my idea to remove the push rods on a cylinder on every journal on a v8 making it a v4 would have some noticable effect. THis is assuming its used as a single passenger car with no load or towing anything.


----------



## NeonLights (Feb 4, 2006)

You have to remember though, that every dollar you spend on modifications to the car to increase mpg is a dollar that could have been spent on gas. Basically you need to calculate how long you have to drive the car with its improved mpg to pay for the modifications. If you spend $1000 to make a car go from 25 mpg to 30 mpg, it could take you quite awhile to recover that money in fuel savings (depending how much you drive).

IMO the best way to maximize fuel efficiency is to carefully choose the car (and options on the car), and drive the car very carefully. Get a manual transmission car if at all possible. There are some free things you can do, many of which have already been mentioned, like over-inflating your tires, and weight reduction. On a Dodge Neon I used to have, I removed 400 lbs from the car (from 2500 lbs to 2100 lbs) and the car was still very streetable. I got as high as 40 mpg on that Neon.

Some things you can replace with better parts when they wear out, like tires for instance. Moving to a narrower, lighter tire with a higher treadwear rating can lead to some gains in mpg, such as going from a 195/60-14 tire to a 175/70-14 tire. 

-Keith


----------



## smokinbasser (Feb 4, 2006)

Replace the air in your tires with nitrogen, the tire pressure will remain stable while with air in them the air molecules can escape therby lowering the tire pressure and trashing your gas mileage.


----------



## Lightmeup (Feb 4, 2006)

smokinbasser said:


> Replace the air in your tires with nitrogen, the tire pressure will remain stable while with air in them the air molecules can escape therby lowering the tire pressure and trashing your gas mileage.


Air is 70% nitrogen to start with. Why would it escape and pure nitrogen would not?


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 4, 2006)

The reason that pulling a push rod does not help much is burried in the design of the car.

A standard V8 has two cylinders in each phase of the Otto 4 stroke cycle at all times, IIRC. The cylinders are carefully designed to cancel out each other's vibrations as they pump up and down. Disabling 1 cylinder will cause an imbalance. Disable the wrong two and it might cause an extreme imbalance. 

Then think about the firing of the cylinders. A V-6 goes bang-bang-bang-bang-bang-bang for every revolution. Take out one cyclinder and you have bang-bang-SILENCE-bang-bang-bang. Take out the wrong two and you have bang-bang-SILENCE-SILENCE-bang-bang. In a 4 stroke engine, the inertia of the flywheel or the firing of other pistons force the cylinder up for the exauht stroke and again for the compression stroke. At low RPM you may find the car will not idle dependably with two cylinders disabled unless you add a bigger flywheel.

The GM version that disables cyclinders does it when the engine is at speed. As I understand, the valves are opened (or were they closed???) and the spark and fuel are suppressed. There is still losses from pumping the cylinder up and down and moving the air back and forth.

Another thing to keep in mind when messing with the engine.... The intake and the exhaust are both 'tuned' to maximize airflow while providing the proper back-pressure. When a cylinder is taken out of the cycle the back pressure is changed and the exhaust cycle of the other cylinders will be affected. This may affect top end power or move the midrange power band around on you.

It's better to start with a smaller engine and super charge or turbo charge to get peak power rather than to use a big engine and only use 1/2 of it's cylinders.

Daniel


----------



## drizzle (Feb 4, 2006)

Only slightly off topic...

I would recommend shifting into neutral when you are stopped for one reason only. That is to reduce the chance of over-heating on a hot day with the A/C on. If your vehicle has this problem it can help you avoid the unpleasant choice of turning off your A/C or running your engine too hot.

BTW, I lived in IL for 10 years and never heard about that law, not that I'm questioning that it exists. Go figure.


----------



## BatteryCharger (Feb 4, 2006)

Lightmeup said:


> Air is 70% nitrogen to start with. Why would it escape and pure nitrogen would not?



Actually it's closer to 80%. And oxygen seeps out faster than the nitrogen, so after your tires have been full a while and refilled a few times, the percentage is even higher. Nitrogen is only a marketing gimmick.


----------



## Lightmeup (Feb 4, 2006)

BatteryCharger said:


> Nitrogen is only a marketing gimmick.


For who/what?


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 4, 2006)

For those selling nitrogen filling systems.

Daniel


----------



## Lightmeup (Feb 4, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> For those selling nitrogen filling systems.
> 
> Daniel


I thought this was a joke since the premise is absurd. You're saying there actually is a 'nitrogen filling system' being sold to people for filling their tires?


----------



## SilverFox (Feb 4, 2006)

Every time your engine turns over, you use some gas. I have been told that at higher RPM's, more gas goes through your engine.

At a stop light, I notice that (with an automatic transmission) I am idling at roughly 700 RPM. When I kick the transmission out of gear, my RPM's go up to about 900.

This suggests that you would use less fuel at a stop light by keeping the car in gear...

In addition to what others have mentioned, I might add that you can use less fuel by planning your trips. If you combine trips, you will be running with a warm car, and a warm car runs more efficiently.

Along these same lines, you can put in a block engine heater. The faster your engine warms up, the better. 

Tom


----------



## BatteryCharger (Feb 4, 2006)

Lightmeup said:


> For who/what?



Tire stores. If one place has a sign up that says "free nitrogen fill with tire purchase" and another doesn't, guess where the uninformed buy their tires? Some places even charge money to fill your tires with nitrogen.



SilverFox said:


> Every time your engine turns over, you use some gas. I have been told that at higher RPM's, more gas goes through your engine.



Yes and no. Certainly more RPMs usually equals more gas burned, but not always. The only thing that determines how much gas your engine will burn is how far the throttle is open. Depending on the load on the engine, you may need to have the throttle open further to obtain the same RPMs. For example, my truck runs at about 2000 RPMs @ 60mph. If I go up hill at 60mph, it still spins 2000 RPMs, but I'm burning more gas than I would on flat ground. As for whether you're in neutral or not, you'll burn the same amount of gas either way, because the throttle is still closed the same whether you're in neutral or drive. The engine only slows down because there's a bigger load attached to it, but it's still burning the same amount of fuel.


----------



## evan9162 (Feb 4, 2006)

> It's better to start with a smaller engine and super charge or turbo charge to get peak power rather than to use a big engine and only use 1/2 of it's cylinders.
> 
> Daniel



Or perhaps, add an electric motor and battery to boost power? Maybe you could have the motor move the car by its self sometimes, especially starting out since they have great low-end torque.

That'd be a neat system - wonder what we could call it?


----------



## cobb (Feb 4, 2006)

40mpg from a neon? I wonder what the rt model gets?

Man, seems you cant win does it? I would gladly have the engine in my dads old geometro replaced with a junkyard engine, but I would need to charge it or take out a loan. I think with the lack of money I have and no capital or colladeral, I would have to go through a dealer to buy a new or used car to afford one. Thats unless I get one from someone that has a car that "runs". That point I doubt it would have too good of fuel economy. 

Makes me really want to rethink the metro, maybe I can swing it getting the engine replaced and getting the electric kitfor 2 grand that offers 35mph for an hour and make it a plug in hybrid? Just got to figure out how to hook the electric motor to the drive train without dealing with too much drag. Thought about the pulley system, then would need to turn over the engine and related crap to get through the tranny. Maybe I can make a sprocket to go in the clutch/flywheel area, chain or belt, hole in bellhousing to electric motor. I would need to hold down the clutch petal to use the electric motor, release it to charge batteries and brake.


----------



## NeonLights (Feb 4, 2006)

BatteryCharger said:


> Nitrogen is only a marketing gimmick.



No, its not. For the average consumer, filling their tires with nitrogen will give them no real world benefit, but there are applications where it is beneficial. Racing for example. Tire pressures with just "air" in them can climb by 10-15 psi or more on a hot day after a few laps on a race course. Filling the tires of a racecar with nitrogen will keep the pressures stable. Fluctuating tire pressures in a racecar can lead to changes in the way a car handles. Even when I'm autocrossing, I can tell the difference in just a couple of psi difference on my car. The pressures can rise by as much as 3-4 psi for me after just one lap. I just bleed the pressures back down after each lap though.

-Keith


----------



## BatteryCharger (Feb 4, 2006)

NeonLights said:


> For the average consumer, filling their tires with nitrogen will give them no real world benefit



We're only talking about average consumers here.


----------



## Brock (Feb 4, 2006)

Check out this great thread over on the WV TDI forums

http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=123503


----------



## NeonLights (Feb 4, 2006)

BatteryCharger said:


> We're only talking about average consumers here.


...and yet you made the blanket statement that it is only a marketing gimmick. It does have benefits for certain applications.


----------



## NeonLights (Feb 4, 2006)

cobb said:


> 40mpg from a neon? I wonder what the rt model gets?


My 1996 DOHC Neon had the same engine/transmission as the R/T, except for a different 5th gear that allowed freeway cruising at a slightly lower rpm. FWIW the 40mpg I got on several tanks was when it was completely stock. I have a friend with with a 1999 Neon R/T who has been able to get 37-38 mpg on the freeway. Unfortunately the 2nd generation Neons (2000+) don't do quite as well on gas. The 2001 Neon ACR I had was only to get a best of 34 mpg on the highway.

The best Neon for gas mileage should be a 1995-99 SOHC 5-speed (non-ACR) model. They have the best gearing in the transmission for mpg. They can be had for as little as $1000 if you look around too. I had my 1996 Neon for almost ten years before seling it last year. Very reliable car and easy to work on.

-Keith


----------



## BatteryCharger (Feb 4, 2006)

NeonLights said:


> ...and yet you made the blanket statement that it is only a marketing gimmick. It does have benefits for certain applications.



A blanket statement about the average consumers which we are talking about. Of course it's not a marketing gimmic for racing applications, because there is no marketing associated with that. It's like race gas. There is no advertising. It would be silly for me to specify that it is useful in racing applications because nobody here is talking about racing.


----------



## NeonLights (Feb 4, 2006)

Actually the only marketing I've seen for nitrogen use in tires has been geared towards use in cars used for racing.


----------



## cobb (Feb 4, 2006)

Will keep that in mind. Going to read all 11 pages of the tdi thing too.

In auto racing they use nitrogen to power the air tools and inflate the tires as its more stable for auto tires in racing and with 3000psi its great for the air tools. Yes, I know air tools generally work on 100psi, but thats what I have been told as an avaid race fan whos been to several nascar races and to the pits.

Seems gearing is the main issue. Wonder if anyone online has swapped out their final drive for a higher gear and gotten 5 or more mpg? Except for the commerical truck article I read about in a signs magazine for sign manufactures and posted about in the hybrid thread.


----------



## BatteryCharger (Feb 4, 2006)

NeonLights said:


> Actually the only marketing I've seen for nitrogen use in tires has been geared towards use in cars used for racing.



Apparently you've never been to a tire store. It's been a long time since I've seen one that _doesn't_ have a sign up about nitrogen, and none of them are talking about racing.


----------



## robk (Feb 4, 2006)

I had about 18 gallons of gas stored for the hurricane season (for 2 generators) and I added STA-BIL, a gas stabilizer designed to extend the life of stored gas last spring. Well, the hurricane season was over, so I poured it into my 2004 GrandAm GT2. It lasted an incredible length of time, I would estimate I got 20 to 30% better mileage from that gas. The gas was over 6 months old, regular (not premium). I thought I was imagining it, so a few tankfulls later I added STA-BIL to the tank and filled it. Once again, the mileage was MUCH better. I don't keep track of gallons, miles, etc., but as everyone here must know, you get a feel for what day you need to fill up, on typical weeks of driving to work, errands, etc. Spend a few bucks on a bottle of STA-BIL and try it. I have no explanation of why it increases mileage, and the manufacturer makes no such claim, but it works for me. Maybe someone here knows what this stuff does? I hope it doesn't dissolve any parts of the fuel system like acetone might.
Rob


----------



## BatteryCharger (Feb 4, 2006)

robk said:


> I have no explanation of why it increases mileage, and the manufacturer makes no such claim, but it works for me.



Sorry, but no, it doesn't. Stabil is mainly isopropyl alcohol. It contains less BTUs per volume than gasoline. If anything, it will lower your MPG by an extremely minute amount. The increase is all in your head or due to other factors. A 20-30% increase would be 5 - 7.5 MPG for a 25 MPG car. There is nothing you could ever put in your tank that would do that.


----------



## Brock (Feb 5, 2006)

Cobb funny you should mention the 5th gear. Someone finally found a relatively way to swap the 5th gear in the VW TDI for a pretty good improvement, again on TDI forums check out

http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=119288

They also have a thread specifically about nitrogen filled tires as well, just check out that whole area at

http://forums.tdiclub.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24

And if you check it out you will see their monthly mileage competition as well, they encourage Prius, well any make to enter there info, a couple of guys enter their trucks as well.


----------



## robk (Feb 5, 2006)

BatteryCharger said:


> Sorry, but no, it doesn't. Stabil is mainly isopropyl alcohol. It contains less BTUs per volume than gasoline. If anything, it will lower your MPG by an extremely minute amount. The increase is all in your head or due to other factors. A 20-30% increase would be 5 - 7.5 MPG for a 25 MPG car. There is nothing you could ever put in your tank that would do that.



No, I don't think it's alcohol.
Ingredients from MSDS/Label
Chemical	CAS No / Unique ID	Percent
MSDS: Proprietary or trade secret additive/ingredient(s)	000000-00-8	5%
Hydrotreated light naphthenic distillate solvent extract	064742-53-6	95%

It's not "all in my head", why don't you try it?
Rob


----------



## jtr1962 (Feb 5, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> The thing about coasting to a stop works with all cars. It tends to make you take your foot off the gas earlier so you save gas that way too. I tend to coast to a stop whenever there are no cars behind me, letting off the gas up to many hundreds of feet before the light.


Oddly enough, if I were to drive doing this would probably be second nature to me since I've been doing it for years as a cyclist. If I let off the "power" while I'm cruising at only 20 mph, I can actually go about 6 blocks before coming to a stop. Out of habit I start coasting whenever I see a red light that I know won't be green by the time I get to it. Besides saving wear on the brake pads, often you end up not needing to stop at all. By virtue of slowing down it takes you longer to hit the light, and this may mean the light will turn green by the time you coast to it. Where it gets interesting is if you know how the lights are timed, and let off the power so you hit the light just changing green at maybe 10 mph. You save some of the energy needed to get back up to speed, you save the bother of taking your feet off the pedals to stay upright when you're stopping, plus you actually save a little time (i.e. you hit the intersection the instant the light is changing moving instead of stopped). Two out of three of these things are advantageous when driving as well.

Where this "technique" becomes even more fun is when you're moving at a good clip (say 30 mph), let off the power, hit the intersection still moving at over 20 mph, and then literally not have the cars starting at the interesection catch you until 3 or 4 blocks later (sometimes you'll even make the next light whereas they don't). Add to this the fun of shooting in the narrow space between two lanes of cars (one stopped and the other parked) at a good clip-kind of like those Death Star scenes in the older Star Wars movies. :devil:


----------



## SilverFox (Feb 5, 2006)

Hello BatteryCharger,



BatteryCharger said:


> Yes and no. Certainly more RPMs usually equals more gas burned, but not always. The only thing that determines how much gas your engine will burn is how far the throttle is open. Depending on the load on the engine, you may need to have the throttle open further to obtain the same RPMs. For example, my truck runs at about 2000 RPMs @ 60mph. If I go up hill at 60mph, it still spins 2000 RPMs, but I'm burning more gas than I would on flat ground. As for whether you're in neutral or not, you'll burn the same amount of gas either way, because the throttle is still closed the same whether you're in neutral or drive. The engine only slows down because there's a bigger load attached to it, but it's still burning the same amount of fuel.



I am not sure I understand what you are saying here...

If we both had the same trucks and were traveling side by side down a flat stretch of road. Your truck is running at 2000 RPM, and mine is running at 2200 RPM due to different sized tires. Are you saying that our gas mileage will be the same?

It seems to me that you would be getting better economy, because your engine is running 200 RPM slower.

The same logic goes when we are both stopped at the stop sign. We are both sitting there with our foot on the brake. If your engine is running 200 RPM faster than mine, there can be no way that we are using the same amount of fuel. Each revolution of the engine can only pull a certain amount of air/fuel mixture through it. If your engine is running 200 RPM faster, you will go through more fuel.

Perhaps we should design a test to check this out. We could fill our cars up, then pull over to the side and let them idle for a half hour or so. We could then fill them up again, once again pull over to the side, step the idle up a few hundred RPM and once again sit for a half hour or so. Go back and fill up and then compare the amounts used...

Tom


----------



## BatteryCharger (Feb 5, 2006)

robk said:


> why don't you try it?



Because I know it doesn't work.

You said yourself "I don't keep track of gallons, miles, etc", thus, you really have no idea if it worked or not. It's all in your head. People who buy those stupid fuel line magnets and "tornados" you stick in your intake say it works too, but in reality they have been proven completely useless. Stabil has been around for a very long time. If it increased your gas mileage don't you think someone else would have found out about it by now? Don't you think Stabil would be advertising that feature? I know quite alot about engines and the fuels that power them. I build high performance V8s for a living. There is *nothing* you can pour in your tank that will increase mileage like that. It is a simple matter of physics. In order to increase your MPG the additive would have to contain significantly more energy per gallon (BTUs) than gasoline, and stabil does not. Unless your car is not bound by the laws of physics, stabil did not increase your mileage in any way, shape, or form.


----------



## robk (Feb 5, 2006)

OK, fine. I'm just telling you what I found. Maybe it's my car. Maybe it's my driving. I think you need a valium.
Rob


----------



## BatteryCharger (Feb 5, 2006)

SilverFox said:


> If we both had the same trucks and were traveling side by side down a flat stretch of road. Your truck is running at 2000 RPM, and mine is running at 2200 RPM due to different sized tires. Are you saying that our gas mileage will be the same?


No, the milage wouldn't be the same because the larger tires would have more rolling resistance and a larger mass which of course takes more energy to spin.



SilverFox said:


> It seems to me that you would be getting better economy, because your engine is running 200 RPM slower.


Yes, but the reason I would be getting better economy is because my throttle wouldn't be open as far which means lower RPMs.



SilverFox said:


> The same logic goes when we are both stopped at the stop sign. We are both sitting there with our foot on the brake. If your engine is running 200 RPM faster than mine, there can be no way that we are using the same amount of fuel. Each revolution of the engine can only pull a certain amount of air/fuel mixture through it. If your engine is running 200 RPM faster, you will go through more fuel.



Well, at a stop sign they'd both be running the same speed because the tires aren't part of the equation.  The engine can pull different amounts of air/fuel at the same RPM. If the engine is idling, that means your throttle is completely closed. When the throttle is closed, the same amount of fuel is always burned no matter how fast the engine is spinning. The same is true if the throttle is open 1/4 of the way, or 1/2 the way, or all the way. It always uses the same amount of fuel for a given throttle position. At the same time, RPMs can vary for a given throttle position. For example, if I'm towing my boat up a steep hill I might have to floor it to maintain 60mph @ 2000 RPMs. When I go back down the hill, I might only have to open the throttle 1/4 of the way to maintain 60mph @ 2000 RPMs. If I floor it now it would jump to over 5000 RPMs, using the same amount of fuel that could only maintain 2000 RPMs when going up the hill.


----------



## BatteryCharger (Feb 5, 2006)

robk said:


> OK, fine. I'm just telling you what I found.



Yes, what you found was a slight mileage increase. There are a million different factors that could have caused it. Maybe you got lucky that tank and didn't stop at as many stop lights. Or you had a tailwind everywhere you drove. Or you drove more highway miles than usual. Or the weather was a little warmer. Or you drove on more freshly paved roads than usual. Or you got an unusually good batch of gas from the gas station. Or you lost a few pounds. The list is endless. Unless you keep extremely detailed records there is no way to know even how much of a gain you found. Gas gauges are extremely inaccurate. I don't doubt that you had an increase in MPG for whatever reason, but Stabil wasn't that reason.


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 5, 2006)

SilverFox said:


> If we both had the same trucks and were traveling side by side down a flat stretch of road. Your truck is running at 2000 RPM, and mine is running at 2200 RPM due to different sized tires. Are you saying that our gas mileage will be the same?



I'm pretty sure you are correct here, but the original statement had to do with the engine being under load (going up hill) at the same RPM.

My theory (untested but logical) is that when you are do 60 MPH on a flat road at 2200 RPM it takes X amount of gas to create the force needed to push down the pistons to move the car. If you start to go up hill, you have more resistance pushing the pistons up, so more gas is needed (stronger explosion) to push the pistons down.

I noted that in my wife's car the revs go up a few hundred when I start up a hill without downshifting. My guess is that the slippage in the auto tranny is accentuated by the greater load of climbing the hill.

Now back to the red light. Many older cars have an "idle setting" that determines the throttle opening (and therefore gas flow) when your foor is off the gas. If the car is in gear with an auto tranny, there is increased drag so the engine slows even though the throttle setting (and therefore gas flow)has not changed. I don't know if modern cars use an RPM sensor and adjust the fuel injectors or if they just have a preset gas flow for idle like the old carborators had.

Please take all of this with a grain of salt.

Daniel


----------



## BatteryCharger (Feb 5, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> My theory (untested but logical) is that when you are do 60 MPH on a flat road at 2200 RPM it takes X amount of gas to create the force needed to push down the pistons to move the car. If you start to go up hill, you have more resistance pushing the pistons up, so more gas is needed (stronger explosion) to push the pistons down.



Exactly right.


----------



## NextLight (Feb 5, 2006)

robk said:


> SNIP I added STA-BIL to the tank and filled it. Once again, the mileage was MUCH better.
> Rob



I noticed this too, on my 488CC snowmobile and 250CC 2C ATV. 

And, I get ~7+ % better mileage runinng premium, and another 7% running Techron fuel injector cleaner at 1/2 the reccomended mix. When gas was almost $4.00 for premium, I bought a lot of Techron.


----------



## cobb (Feb 5, 2006)

Thanks. I read the TDI thing on driving a diesel. Maybe the new computer controlled engines work different than the mechanical ones or rpms play a more important roll in fuel economy than throttle position? With the vw diesels my family has had, the further you stomp it, the more fuel is dumped into the engine and the blacker the cloud is from the rear of your car. I do not think that is good as that is either incomplete combusion or raw fuel being burned in the exhaust. Sure, you got a hell of a lot more power and to over drive a diesel like that makes up for the delay in the combustion process. There is just a small voice in the back of my head that reminds me too much fuel can lock the cylinder and or break the head or gasket. These were non turbo cars too. Now if this was an old chevy truck, you can be sure the gas meter would move if you stomped it at a stop light and let off at 2 grand. 

I read up on the chevy dod, seems chrysler is coming with something like that too. THe dod pages said only 8% was gained and yes, both valves were closed to the cylinder from the lifters. Also suggested to use a low torque cam to increase manifold vacuum.

As for the fuel supplement. I know gas evaporates at a low temp, maybe that supplement reduced that effect? One thing that helped to improve fuel economy was the return less fuel systems that pressurized the gas to reduce that effect. If the engine was knocking, that is when a cylinder fires in reverse taking power from the rest. If this reduced that, it could of given you more power, so less throttle was used to get around.


----------



## cobb (Feb 5, 2006)

Well, I read all 33 pages on the tdi site on switching out 5th gear for a higher one. After reading through all the text I thought it was one of those nonevents like the thousands of pages online about free energy, over unity, etc. TUrns out about page 22 someone said they got 5% increase. From that point on you read one or two posts a page that said they got simialr outcomes, but many drive a range of speeds from city to well over 100mph. Not much of a fair or accurate test. My commute would be 11 miles each way to work and back for the week and 67 to and from my folks house on the weekend, unless I move home and help them pay the rent. That case it will be more like 78 x2 a day.


----------



## cyberhobo (Feb 5, 2006)

This is how you get more mpg:


http://pesn.com/2005/03/17/6900069_Acetone/ :naughty:


----------



## Brock (Feb 6, 2006)

Maybe I am misunderstanding what is being said but, using scangauge, a device that can read the ECU in most OBDII cars and give you amount of fuel burned at any give time.

http://www.scangauge.com/

I can assure you with an automatic in both the gasser and diesel Jetta they used more fuel at idle in gear then in park or neutral. All of this talk is irrelevant with a stick since you can’t sit in gear stopped (without a lot of work)  

I am not sure why everyone is equating this to RPM and not engine loading. When in gear you are trying to move the car forward and the brakes hold it back, thus work is being done, in neutral the car just idles, a bit faster RPM, but uses less fuel because it is doing no extra work.

I am sure everyone understand revving an engine to 2000rpm in neutral and running down the highway at 2000rpm, you burn a LOT more fuel on the highway.


----------



## markdi (Feb 6, 2006)

with a automatic in drive sitting at a light you are heating up the fluid in your torque converter and transmission cooler more than you would if you put it in netural.

just compare the injector puse widths or the idle air control valve position.

how about putting a really heavy duty push button controled starter on your car so that you can start and stop your engine at stoplights - drive thru's etc.

I would defeat the netural safety on a automatic car 
and use the brake light switch so that you have to depress the brake or the car would not restart.

maybe put a switch on the clutch pedal of a manual car - depends on the car.


----------



## MScottz (Feb 6, 2006)

I would think you would burn up more gas starting your car up at every light than you would just letting it run.


----------



## cobb (Feb 6, 2006)

Cant speak for the acetone.

Brock, that kind of hit on the efficiency of the engine vs ultimate fuel economy. According to the tdi thread, the engine is most efficient under load at 2000 rpms. If you sat at the stop light with a foot on the brake and gas, your just wasting fuel, but your engine is putting out the ultimate amount of power. If you travel down the road, putting it in the highest gear to max out the avaliable torque, you are at the most fuel efficient rpm. Thats assuming or hopeing that at 2000 rpm your doing the highway speed limit. This is really based on the tdi forums and the tdi engine.

MScottz, they used a ten second rule. If you are going to idle less than ten seconds, leave it running, if more, shut it down. Yeah, I would rig up something to kill the throttle or stop the fuel flow into the injector pump for a diesel. THis way you can use the engine as a break as needed by pushing the clutch in and out and to coast. 

I cant say about the idle with it in gear or not. I know automatic cars have a different timming than manuals. Also if the car has EFI, it likely has a servo and some other doodads that adjust the fuel mixture and idle vs a carburated car. On an air cooled engine it has to idle at a certain speed to ensure it gets good splash lubrication and cooling from the machanical fan for small lawn mower engines. Those have different settings for idle and throttle, so you can make it use more fuel at idle than off idle and somewhat vice versa. This is why your weed eater may idle and not rev or it revs but wont idle.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Feb 6, 2006)

The two absolute best things I can do to save fuel are stay at 60mph, and go WITH the wind.

True story. Left Shepherd. TX with 5140Lnb trailer bound for Corpus Christi. The AVG. Readout in my Ram stayed at 19.8 all the way. But a pretty strong tailwind was behind me. I came back with a 2000Lb trailer (empty tank) and the AVG. was down to 15.7 by the time I got back.

We have pretty strong North wind today. I had to go west first, then took several back roads north. AVG. was about 19.7. It got to 20.1 in about 25 miles coming south.

It ain't easy going 60. SO MANY people including 18 wheelers are doing 80+

But I plug away at it. Overall mileage through 18 fillups is 18.77... but not for lack of trying!


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 6, 2006)

cyberhobo said:


> This is how you get more mpg:
> 
> 
> http://pesn.com/2005/03/17/6900069_Acetone/ :naughty:




Ahhh, yesssss. A fine web site. It also tells you how to make fuel from water. And How to get "free energy" (as long as there are no cameras around to disturb the energy field) and many other marvels.

As a simple test of a site's believability I simply check their math and look for imperical evidence. The math on the acetone web page is way off. They say 3000 - 5000 parts gasoline to 1 part acetone, then tell you to put 1 - 3 oz per 10 gallons of gas. That's 1280 to 1 and 426 to 1, respectivey. They also show test results without any details, not even the name of the person who did the test.

It was amusing. It was not convincing.

Daniel


----------



## markdi (Feb 7, 2006)

sitting at a light - stopped
all your engine is doing is working againsed the tourque converter.

torque converter coupling eficiency is not very good at 800 to 1000 rpm.

so it does not take much air or fuel to maintain idle rpm.

so stopped at a light your engine is not putting out 1/4 it's ultimate(root mean square hp) power - probably well under 15 hp - depending on the engine.

if you do not beleve me and you own a battery operated portable ociloscope - just look at the fuel injector pulse widths at full throttle and at idle


----------



## SilverFox (Feb 8, 2006)

Hello Brock,



Brock said:


> I can assure you with an automatic in both the gasser and diesel Jetta they used more fuel at idle in gear then in park or neutral. All of this talk is irrelevant with a stick since you can’t sit in gear stopped (without a lot of work)
> 
> I am not sure why everyone is equating this to RPM and not engine loading. When in gear you are trying to move the car forward and the brakes hold it back, thus work is being done, in neutral the car just idles, a bit faster RPM, but uses less fuel because it is doing no extra work.




I may have been responsible for bringing RPM's into the discussion.

It occurred to me that at 700 RPM the engine is using around 28% less air/fuel mixture than at 900 RPM. I was thinking that would result in less fuel consumption as well.

This is an interesting question. I have discussed this with several people that are knowledgeable in engine performance. Most say that there may be a little difference, it would be very slight. They say you would use the same amount of fuel either way. Some suggest that you would use more fuel with the engine under load.

I have been unable to find information on this, so am setting up a test. Using a pint container as a fuel tank, I will start and warm up the engine, then change to a fresh container and run for 10 minutes. Then a fresh container will be installed and another run for 10 minutes will be done with the engine idling under load. The results should give me an idea of what is going on.

Tom


----------



## Zigzago (Feb 8, 2006)

My VW Passat has a digital readout that displays the calculated MPG for the current trip. It's an amusing challenge during my daily commute to try to beat my "personal best" numbers. The readout is great because you get immediate feedback on what techniques are working and what's burning the most gas. As others have said, the best techniques are slow acceleration and coasting as much as possible. Luck enters into it too through traffic light timing and the actions of other drivers.


----------



## mdocod (Feb 8, 2006)

I didn't take the time to read through everything on here... but some folks were saying to use the maximum inflation pressure on your tires sidewalls...

I WOULD NOT recomend following that advice unless the load rating of the tire is very similar to the actual load to you putting on the tire...

Example: My SUV weighs about 4500lbs, I have "E" load rated tires on the vehicle because the stiffer layers of rubber reduce rolling resistance and hold up to adverse driving better from my experience, HOWEVER, I would never run them at the 80PSI sidewall "max" pressure because that pressure is designed for to carry over 3000lbs(per tire), (basically, a 12,000lb truck). If I were to run them at 80PSI, the tire would carry weigh unevenly, resulting in very fast center wear and very poor traction... Instead, I run them slightly higher than the Vehicle manufacture says on the inside of my door... Remember, many manufactures perposly list lower than ideal pressures on the vehicle because it makes the vehicle ride smoother, a selling point... Adding 4-5psi to the manufactures recomendation is a safe margin, but adding 50psi (my isuzu recomends 29, the tires are rated for 80) would be a very BAD idea.

As far as what can be done to the engine... 
A free-er flowing exsaust (cat/pipes/muffler) increased my average milage ~1mpg, it will eventually pay it self off, but it would have needed to be replaced at somepoint anyways.
A free-er flowing intake, possibly arranged to pull from a colder region (*cold air* intake) can help slightly, the engine workes less hard to pull in the air it is going to use for burning this way.
If you live in a state where it is legal- Some aftermarket "chips" have the potencial to make better fuel economy when the vehicle is driven lightly, and more power when you need it. (example: there are lots of guys with tuned out rice-burning civics, that have both more power than stock, and get over 40-50mpg when driven normally)

As far as adatives go... Acetone is probably BS: I have yet to read any test that had enough time with and without it to walk away with any conclusions... check out the addatives section over on Bitog.com to read about what people are putting in their oil and gas to help things.. The only product that proves itself time and time again, is FP60. (http://www.lubecontrol.com/)

Keep your intake and combustion chambers clean. Do a water injection cleaning once and awhile. (every 30,000 miles would be sufficiant)... read mroe about how to suck water into your intake over at bitog.com.... lots of people do it, the results are excellent and the cost is practically free.

Switch to a 0w30 weight synthetic oil... it will have the same viscosity as a regular 5w30, or 10w30 that you may be used to at operating temp, but it will be thinner during cold starts than the 5w and 10w oils are. the result is easier pumping, and less of the engines power used to pump thick oil. Being synthetic it will also pump more easily even at operating temp, and slightly reduce overall drag in the engine. I gain about 0.5mpg when I use 0w30 German Castrol Syntec as apposed to other "dino" oils.

some folks are talking about rpms and changing the gearing: remember- rpms are not directly related to fuel economy, the amount of work the engine is doing IS... different engines get different results in fuel economy from different type of driving habbits. Some engines become more efficiant when they hit a "power band" and are operated with a lot of manifold vacume, where other engines that are torquey down low, are more efficiant when you lug them around at low rpms with the throttle plate open. My isuzu engine has a relativally flat torque curve, it gets best economy if I lug it, being a manual transmission makes it easy to keep rpms down below 2,000. for highways driving: Your engine is most efficiant where the torque curve PEAKS, that should be the rpm and speed you should maintain to optimize fuel economy.

for trucks- an air dam actually can be benificial- at the sacrifice of what the truck was capable of before (having clearance is the REASON i own an SUV, and then lifted it a bit)

Best of luck!! take it easy!


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 9, 2006)

The real problem is that you have to balance 4 distinct requirements when you design (or alter) a car.

This thread is about milage. Some of the suggestions will decrease power (shutting down cylinders, for intance) and some will increase polution (re-routing air intake to pull cold air, additives, chip changes). Some may actually hurt the milage (exhaust changes, additives) if not done exactly right. Some of the suggestions can actually harm the engine (lean out the fuel, water injection * , additives) or the sensors and catalytic converter.

The most effective techinque is accellerate slower, coast more and keep the car in top condition. Drop to 55 on the freeway and you can also take advantage of the trucks' slip stream. Follow this advice and it will also minimize your polution.

Daniel
* Water injection, if done correctly can have benefits. IIRC there's the possibility of corossion under some circumstances . You can cause a water lock (and major damage) if you accidently flood a cyclinder.


----------



## markdi (Feb 9, 2006)

adding a cold air intake system to any car with a oxygen sensor in the exaust will not increase polution.


----------



## cobb (Feb 9, 2006)

As one who works at a place that sells construction trucks, its amazing to see how far back inner cooling of turbo charged air goes. I thought the cold air, inner cooler BS was something someone invented recently with all the smaller turboed imports.


----------



## lingpau (Feb 12, 2006)

Bought a Quart of Acetone at Lowes ($5.37) and tried 2 oz. in my gas tank of an old and high milage 1993 Nissan Sentra this weekend. Traveled 300 miles. Seemed to improve gas milage about 5 MPG! Trying it again in another vehicle this week. For $5.37 it is worth a try. If it doesn't work, acetone is an excellent solvent and cleaner for lots of things.(follow directions and warnings on can) Anyone else try acetone?


----------



## cobb (Feb 12, 2006)

Thanks for trying it. Wouldnt that be something if it really works?


----------



## lingpau (Feb 12, 2006)

I know there are LOTS of easy simple things one can do to increase your cars gas milage. Many have been already mentioned. Namely, having a light foot on the gas peddle, a clean upgraded air filter, properly inflated tires. Good spark plugs, removing unneeded weight from the vehicle etc... What I am looking for next are the cost effective additives to add to all the regular good maintance items for better gas milage. If an additive cost as much as the gas it saves, you are no fruther ahead.(my opinion) I will report back on the acetone as soon as my vehicles get their next fill ups. I am adding 2 oz. of acetone per 10 gallons of gas. We will see. So far(in the Sentra, it looks promising---up 5 mpg)so good. This is not a scientific test, its a real world test. Anyone else trying this stuff?


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 12, 2006)

I'm pretty sure that 5MPG is well within the standard variance in milage. Is there any possibility that you can do a real structured test?

You could fill the tank all the way to start, then drive 100 miles along a preset course at a recorded speed and refill again, measuring the amount needed. Then you have to emply that tank (since it has acetone in it) and fill again on a day exactly like the previous day. After duplicating the previous run, you would again fill up at the same pump as before.

The problem, of course is that you can not precisely duplicate the previous rout e and driving conditions. You could come close.

The test has to be pretty long since a 5MPG increase in a 30MPG car will only save 2.6 on a 35 mile trip. That's hard to accurately measure with a standard gas pump. They all shut off at different points and things like car temperature and ground slope will alter the amount of gass you add.

I will NOT be adding acetone to my gas. I know how much the little sensors, gaskets and things cost. A $200 repair bill and a day in the shop is a high price to pay for slightly better milage.

I'm pretty sure that acetone woudl be added by the fuel companies if it was safe and advantageous to do so. After all, Shell would double their sales if they could honestly advertise that you'd get 5 MPG more using their gas instead of Exxon.


Daniel


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Feb 12, 2006)

Probably more truth spoken above than you'd EVER hear from the Government!

Light foot is the best thing I can do with my Ram 2500 Cummins. I had a really grungy air filter and was sure a new one would be worth an MPG or so. But I suspect "winter" blended fuel is hurting my mileage a bit. The average readout is giving me 20.5 just now.


----------



## IsaacHayes (Feb 12, 2006)

Opening the throttle will DECREASE your vacuum, not increase it.

Having one of those vacuum gaguges also can tell you if your ignition, valves, and rings are good etc. 

Plus if you concentrate on this gauge and keeping a high vacuum this might be easier than just remembering to be "light foot" which can be hard to do.


----------



## lingpau (Feb 13, 2006)

This thread on improving gas milage has been very informative. It seems to me the secret of improving your gas milage is not just one cureall thing to do, but taking a number of steps to maximize your fuel economy. Its all up to the car owner. One particular statement that was made I don't agree with. Someone said that they thought that if putting acetone (or any extra additive for that matter) in your fuel would improve the milage, some oil company would do it. This way they would have an advantage over all the other companies and double their sales of gas. If I believe this, then all store bought additives are worthless. Maybe this is true? (since the oil companies did not add them) I don't think most oil companies are looking to double their sales.(just their profit) Since most refineries are already operating at full or near full capacity- this would be hard to do. Where would the extra gas come from? To my knowledge, no new refinery has been built for years and no company has one in the process of being built. I don't really think the oil companies want to flood the market with gas, or create a "super gas" with extra milage. My opinion is just the opposite. Gas shortages are good for the oil business. It drives up the cost. The less they refine, the better chance of a shortage. Why would they do anything to decrease gas consumption? The glut would lower the cost and they would make less profit. They don't want change. Billions per month of profit(just XOM) is good reason not to change anything. Just my personal thoughts. And I remember when I use to give away plates,glasses and gifts just to get more customers to fill up their tanks at the outrageous price of 29.9 cents per gallon! This included washing every cars front and back window and checking their oil. Ancient history!


----------



## twentysixtwo (Feb 13, 2006)

MDOCOD - MAX TIRE PRESSURE - Very good point about E-Rated tires, 80 PSI is way too high. I'm thinking of conventional tires where the max pressure is typicall 10 lbs more than the recommended pressusre. The recommended pressure is the car makers recommendation based on a balance of ride, NV, impact harsnhess, etc. Higher pressure improves rolling resistance and handling (cornering ability), but degrades NVH, impact harshness and ride quality plushness) My Explorer runs at 40 psi (32 recommended) and my Freestar at 45 (35 recommended). When I autocrossed Miatas, I ran at 42 (31 recommended) 

Intake and exhaust - having your intake ported will definitely help. a performance exhaust will probably help but will also definitely make it louder. The reason why I say probably if you have a modern vehicle, the calibration may require adjustment.

Air dams are DEFINITELY beneficial as well as "tire kickers" - look at the bottom of a Lincoln LS or most BMW's - there's basically an air dam to kick the air down to clear the tire.

Shutting down cylinders when you don't need them - GOOD IDEA - Disconnecting pushrods - VERY BAD IDEA for reasons already stated. Simply put, your car won't run properly at all.

The whole acetone and fuel additive thing is pretty dodgy IMO. The oil companies would be all over any additive that was safe and had a significant improvement in FE for the average vehicle. The black helicopter crowd always think the opposite but in reality the oil companies and gas distributors are all in competition with each other and anything that gives them an advantage would be on the market if it really worked. As far as the giveaways, this just proves the point. It wasn't trying to get people to fill up, it was trying to get people to fill up - at YOUR companies gas station. I know I would pay 5% more for gas that gave me 10% better mileage.

Same goes with any add on magnets, tornado spiral doohickeys and such. Ever since CAFE was enacted, auto makers spend millions each year to eke out an extra tenth of a mpg (while maintaining the same 0-60, performance feel, etc). Anyone who is stupid enough to think that they have overlooked some simple thing like magnets, fuel catalyzers, etc. etc. deserves to have their money taken away by snake oil salesmen.


----------



## Coop (Feb 13, 2006)

Want mpg?? go buy a Daihatsu Cuore  how about 48 mpg, and thats mixed use, from the weekly groceyshopping to me driving to work (150+ km/h)

Plus it's reliable, and maintenance? change the oil once a year and refuel in time... not to mention they're cheap to buy...

But theres always a downside... It's small... really small


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 13, 2006)

Small is really the key to maximizing economy. The less mass you have to move the less energy you waste moving it. At the same time, the wind resistance goes down with less frontal area.

I wonder if we will ever reach the point where we require that single person cars be used for lone drivers on their commutes. Small, slender cars with tightly controlled engines and distance based cruise control could lessen congestion while saving energy; lots of energy. Of course, that would require that you own a "family car" and a "commuter car", but many commuters do that already.

While it's possible the gas companies are not concerned with sales, the fact that you see commercials in magazines and TV says otherwise. 

Daniel


----------



## greenlight (Feb 13, 2006)

I used to 'coast' a lot in my previous cars. They were manual transmission, so it was easy to get the engine back in gear by matching the rpms. I thought I was saving money because I was going faster and the engine wasn't working as hard. 

I'm sure it's illegal, but what isn't?

I don't do it now with my automatic because it revs too high when the engine is engaged, even if I give it some gas. But still, I hate to have to accelerate going downhill when it isn't necessary.


----------



## Aaron1100us (Feb 13, 2006)

First, let me say that I'm a mechanic and have learned alot about things to do for fuel mileage. Some of these things can increase the life of your engine too. Some people think engine oil is just engine oil ( step dad thinks this way) and they are all the same. Nope, they are all different. I did a speech in College about this a while back. Two of the top brands of oil are Mobile One and Valvoline. The synthetic in either is excellent. Synthetic oil reduces the friction in your engine. Friction = heat, therefore more energy lost through friction. Kinda like pedaling a bike with an old rusty chain compared to a new, nicely oiled one. Pennzoil is about the worst oil you can use. I took apart a Ford 390 once that was full of deposits. They guy even changed oil every 3,000 miles. Another thing is good spark plugs. Not just new ones, good ones like the Bosch platinum plus 4. They burn all the fuel. Some plugs don't burn all the fuel which equals unused fuel out the tail pipe. A clean air filter is good but a high flow air filter like a K&N is better. Plus all the other mentioned things like tires pumped up properly help too. I had a 1997 Dodge Neon that was supposed to be 34 miles to the gallon but I got 41. Pretty good I thought I used Valvoline full synthetic, bosch platinum plus 4 and a K&N air filter with a cut out air box. There are other pluses. I had 154,000 miles on my neon when I got rid of it and it still had factory cylinder compression. The platinum plugs last 60,000 miles instead of 35-40,000 miles and the K&N air filter has a 1,000,000 guarantee. Oh, forgot to mention. Another thing I added to my oil was Restore. Unlike most oil additives which just make the oil thicker, Restore fills in the tiny scratches in the cyclinder walls and bearing surfaces. This keeps compression up (another fuel saver) and makes bearings last alot longer ( don't have to rebuild your engine at 150,000 miles)


----------



## Lightmeup (Feb 13, 2006)

Aaron1100us said:


> Another thing I added to my oil was Restore. Unlike most oil additives which just make the oil thicker, Restore fills in the tiny scratches in the cyclinder walls and bearing surfaces. This keeps compression up (another fuel saver) and makes bearings last alot longer ( don't have to rebuild your engine at 150,000 miles)


Fills the scratches with what? Do you know of any objective tests or independent evaluations of this product? Don't mean to doubt you, but I have never heard of this stuff.


----------



## Aaron1100us (Feb 13, 2006)

Go to http://www.restoreusa.com to learn more

When you look at the stuff, it is blueish colored and isn't some type of thick oil like motor honey or stuff like that. It has CSL in it (not exactly sure what CSL is though. I've taken apart engines that have had this run through it and was amazed at the condition. It says on the container and on the website that it fills in tiny scratches in the cylinder walls but main bears, cam bearings and rod bearings are from what I've seen, in excellent condition even with high miles from using this stuff. I don't understand it all or what its made of, I just know that I've used it, use it now and have had excellent results. Now, I have a 2001 Jeep cherokee with the 4.0L engine. It had 50,000 miles on it when I got it. I use that stuff every oil change along with valvoline full synthetic and a K&N air filter. I can get about 20-22 miles to the gallon not pulling anything. The jeep has 102,000 miles on it and it pulls our 2,500lb camper like nothing, 75 mph down the interstate no problem. Has just as much power as it did or more than when we got it. Doesn't burn any oil. Oil stays at the full or very close to the full mark on the dipstick the entire 3,000 miles.


----------



## Lightmeup (Feb 13, 2006)

Dude, does that stuff really cost twenty bucks a can?


----------



## 357 (Feb 13, 2006)

I'd say drive near 48 mph whenever you safely can. That is the speed I read that testers arrive at the estimated miles per gallon of new cars. It seems to be an optimal gas speed for many vehicles. Obviously, safety should always come before gas miles though...


----------



## mdocod (Feb 13, 2006)

> Bought a Quart of Acetone at Lowes ($5.37) and tried 2 oz. in my gas tank of an old and high milage 1993 Nissan Sentra this weekend. Traveled 300 miles. Seemed to improve gas milage about 5 MPG! Trying it again in another vehicle this week. For $5.37 it is worth a try. If it doesn't work, acetone is an excellent solvent and cleaner for lots of things.(follow directions and warnings on can) Anyone else try acetone?



It should be pointed out that gasoline already contains very small amounts of acetone... but these are very very small concentrations, seems to be just a result of the refining proccess from my understanding... most vehicles have no problem with higher than normal concentrations of acetone in the tank- but be warned, acetone IS A POWERFULL SOLVENT!!! it is capable of destroying certains types of gasket materials.. most vehicles will have no problem at all with this, but I have heard rumors that there are some vehicles whos fuel-systems seals may not be compatable with acetone... just a word of caution..

oh- and about the 5MPG thing... this is really common amongst people who decide to test anything to get better milage, the whole time you have it in your tank you are thinking about milage, the result is a milage friendly driving change that you may or may not contiously notice.... Only way someone could convince me it really works, is if they did a multi-thousand mile round trip, then repeated it with acetone under very controlled conditions.



> a performance exhaust will probably help but will also definitely make it louder. The reason why I say probably if you have a modern vehicle, the calibration may require adjustment.



I should have gone into more detail on this... as you pointed out, some modern cars would need calibration to take advantage.... and in some cercumstances (new dodge pickups come to mind), upgrading the exsaust results in worse performance than stock.



> The synthetic in either is excellent. Synthetic oil reduces the friction in your engine. Friction = heat, therefore more energy lost through friction. Kinda like pedaling a bike with an old rusty chain compared to a new, nicely oiled one. Pennzoil is about the worst oil you can use. I took apart a Ford 390 once that was full of deposits. They guy even changed oil every 3,000 miles.



I couldn't agree more... I'm parcial to the german castrol 0w30 (which is castrols only real synthetic, the rest of the syntec line is hydrocracked dino). Redline, while expensive, repeatedly results in engines that look like they were just drove off the lot yesterday after a hundred thousand miles. A clean engine is a healthy engine, synthetic oils keep things cleaner, especially in engines that are forced to work hard and make a lot of heat.

It's not really the friction/heat issue that worries me ~95%+ of engine heat is from combustion, the remaining heat is friction related, it's keeping passageways and metal surfaces clean that keeps the engine healthy... See... regular dino oils, have a film strength of about 500psi, whereas synthetic has a film strenth of around 2000psi... the difference may seem huge, but the reality is that no normal passenger car engine ever exerts anywhere near 500psi between metal parts, so both oils are capable of providing the needed lubrication. Where the synthetic gains the edge is in keeping those metal parts clean. Take a cam-lobe for example. Oil forms a more stable film over a cam lobe when the metal is clean and free of varnish. varnish reduces the oils ability to form a proper barrier, resulting in faster wear, more friction and heat. The synthetic doesn't reduce the friction drastically inicially, but over the life of the engine it keeps the metal in better shape, so that the oil can continue doing it's job appropriotly. Syntheitc also pumps more freely, especially in cold tempuratures, which is benificial for both cold-start wear reduction and fuel economy.



> Originally Posted by Aaron1100us
> Another thing I added to my oil was Restore. Unlike most oil additives which just make the oil thicker, Restore fills in the tiny scratches in the cyclinder walls and bearing surfaces. This keeps compression up (another fuel saver) and makes bearings last alot longer ( don't have to rebuild your engine at 150,000 miles)





> Fills the scratches with what? Do you know of any objective tests or independent evaluations of this product? Don't mean to doubt you, but I have never heard of this stuff.



actually, restore has been shown to temporarily increase compression in severely worn engines... there are other addatives that use similar ideology to accomplish a similar goal... basically, Restor contains particals of copper and lead in rather large quantities. It causes the oil to behave differently when pressed between the rings and cylinder walls. The other adative that comes to mind is Motor Silk, which uses boron in the same way. Motor Silk is much healthier for the engine, and has actually been proven to form a layer of boron over metal parts... but these engine-fix-in-a-can addatives should be taken with a grain of salt, they are not healthy for an engine long-term. Most engines that are suffering from compression loss are the result of sludge and carbon deposits in the ring area, limiting the rings ability to expand and contract to the cylinder wall... a cleaning can often help.. if the engine is far beyond that and is just blowing blue smoke everywhere, then engine-restore is a cheap way to help pass emissions and get a few thousand more miles out of an old engine.

If you want to truly restore an engine that still has real life left in it... CLEAN IT!!.. (go to auto-rx.com and order some, follow the directions exactly, it's the only engine cleaner I have found that really does what it claims, and does so in a way that is very gentle for the engine.) As I said above, clean metal parts are the most critical component to a long lasting engine.... Engine Restore is not a way to prevent having to rebuild every 150,000, in fact, if you were to buy a new car and use it every oil change I garantee you WOULD be rebuilding your engine at 150,000 or less.


----------



## Lightmeup (Feb 13, 2006)

mdocod,
That auto-rx website is very impressive. Looks like a very neat product, if you can believe what they say. What is your experience with it?


----------



## lingpau (Feb 13, 2006)

Lots of good advice in the last few replies. I am going to look at a number of maintance suggestions for my vehicles. Many appear to be sound advice. Its very obvious that some have complete faith in the big companies and feel its stupid to question or experiment with the traditional ways of doing things. This is probably the safe route for most people, but I don't really think its stupid for people to try new things or tinker with their cars.( it could be expensive if something is ruined) Its not necessarly bad or stupid to look at the accepted "technology" and try to improve. If I remember back a few years ago, some back yard "stupid person" took an empty container and connected it to the overflow on his cars radiator to catch the expanding antifreeze. He didn't like to see the fluid run out of a hot engine and be wasted. Now the overflow container is part of every car! He was not part of the "big companies" that had tried everything and were not to be questioned" History is full of "nonprofessionals" that made breakthroughs and discoveries in many fields. I agree that many additives are questionable in value, but its worth taking a second look at new ideas when they come up and not just calling people stupid for having an open mind. Yes, suckers are born every minute, but sometimes its worth it to try new things.


----------



## alaskawolf (Feb 13, 2006)

BatteryCharger said:


> Use synthetic oil where ever you can. My Tahoe showed a 3hp increase on the dyno when I switched to Amsoil in the differentials and transfer case. That of course proves a significant decrease in friction and could only lead to an increase in MPG. (though I try not to measure MPG because it's horrible either way  )


 
ive run Amsoil in all my cars for years, great stuff and works great at -60F below too. i use it more for performance than MPG but less friction equals a more efficent vehicle.

good automotive fluids throughout the vehicle,a light foot on the gas peddle and weight reduction and aerodynamics are good ways to improve MPG. 






how we save on gas up here in Alaska


----------



## mdocod (Feb 13, 2006)

I did 2 full cycles on it in my 185,000mile old isuzu rodeo, it gets better fuel economy (closer to what it was when younger), it helped quiet down the hydrolic adjusters (infamous tickers), it lugs better (more torque down low, can engage clutch and pull rpms below idle better, better compression) and poking around with a FLASHLIGHT down the oil fill hole I can visibly see a significant reduction in crud deposits and varnish. It did not reduce my oil consumption, but oil consumption in my engine is mostly in the valves, there is also a design flaw in the engine, not enough oil drainback holes from the rings, so it gets squeezed passed the rings... nothing can be done but aftermarket parts in a rebuild... but that's anotehr story all toegther.... overall, the ARX has really put some noticable life back in the engine...

I bought a suzuki swift recently... 2001 with 50,000 miles on it, I got it for so cheap I wasn't too concerned with how well it was taken care of, needed another car that was reasonably low milage... after owning it a little while, I deciced to pull the valve cover and have a look around... Sludge and varnish everywhere, I'm guessing this engine saw less than 5 oil changes in it's first 50,000 miles... I just started an ARX treatment on this engine a few days ago.... I have pictures of the starting point... and i'll compare to pictures after arx has been completed... I'll be discussing and posting results in a few months on bitog.com in the addatives section.

There are numerous people who have done similar things, before and after photos, completally independant of ARX the company. Many of those results can also be found on bitog.com. To top that off, before and after used oil analysis shows improvement in most engines (reduced metal wear indication, oil stays in grade better, increased TBN retension, all signs that the engine is in better condition)...

kinda getting off topic here abit, but a better running engine helps fuel economy, so I suppose it's all relative.


----------



## mdocod (Feb 13, 2006)

good point on the synthetics in your other components as well. I use amsoil syncromesh 5w30 in my manual tranny box (calls for engine oil), and have some amsoil gear oil waiting to go in my axles.... many of us don't have anything more than an engine and transaxle to worry about in our modern front wheel drives, but for 4wd systems, using synthetics in the tranny, transfer case, and axles, can have a decent effect. .. arx can go in those components too to help restore(clean off varnish) the metal sufaces of the gears, oil climbs the gears better when the gears are clean...

arx was originally developed for cleaning gear systems in large print press machines... it wasn't originally designed to be sold as an oil adative, so there were good intensions behind it (better than just selling snake oil and making huge profits, like companies like slick50)... in fact, the product was inpired as a replacement for harsh solvents after the inventor got colen cancer- which was attributed to his exposure to those harsh solvents on a regular basis. arx has an application patent, not a product patent, because the ester oils found in arx, are naturally occuring and can't be patented. application patents require proof of claims...


----------



## Lightmeup (Feb 13, 2006)

mdocod said:


> I just started an ARX treatment on this engine a few days ago.... I have pictures of the starting point... and i'll compare to pictures after arx has been completed... I'll be discussing and posting results in a few months on bitog.com in the addatives section.
> 
> There are numerous people who have done similar things, before and after photos, completally independant of ARX the company. Many of those results can also be found on bitog.com.


bitog.com? Are we talking about the same thing? The "eXtremophileAdventures" website? I saw nothing there about cars, etc.?

LMU


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 13, 2006)

lingpau said:


> Its very obvious that some have complete faith in the big companies and feel its stupid to question or experiment with the traditional ways of doing things. This is probably the safe route for most people, but I don't really think its stupid for people to try new things or tinker with their cars.( it could be expensive if something is ruined) Its not necessarly bad or stupid to look at the accepted "technology" and try to improve.



There is a difference between "complete faith in the big companies" and recognizing that a modern car has a very complex system. This was brought home when I looked at the idle adjustment prcedure for my car 10 or 15 years ago. It called for not only setting the computer to a certain state but also metering a specific amount of propane into the fuel mixture.

A modern car is a compromise of many goals. Pollution control, HP, torque, ease of starting, reliability and smooth operation are all blended together. My car has a dozen sensors to maximize as many of those goals as possible. I'm not going to screw with my car unless I have the equipment to measure the changes. I accept valid scientific tests by others in lieu of measuring it myself.

So I will not balk at using synthetic oils. I will avoid additives and add-ons that have only testimonials as to their safety and value.

Daniel


----------



## Billson (Feb 14, 2006)

Has anybody had any experience using Havoline? When the oil description states that it is fully synthetic based, can we safely assume it does not contain any dino in there?


----------



## mdocod (Feb 14, 2006)

sorry.... i totally messup up on the website address.... for some reason I thought that was it... see, it's an acronim. "bob is the oil guy" dot com....

so i thought for some reason that that was the address

it's bobistheoilguy.com

bout 10,000 members atm... 


To answer your question Billson..
i'm not sure what bottle of havoline you read that on... The "regular" havoline is dino oil, but is a very good dino oil. I've used havoline in the past, works fine, i've seen plenty of good used oil analysis of others using havoline.


----------



## lingpau (Feb 15, 2006)

cobb: I found an interesting article and study on increasing gas milage. Looks like someone has already done some homework on fuel chemistry. I'm not sure if its a scientific study, but its very interesting and appears legit.--and cheap! http://www.lubedev.com/smartgas/additive.htm Maybe this stuff and all the other maintance tips will help milage. Also, I checked my trucks tires and found they were 8 psi to low! Air added- cheap additive- guaranteed improvement in milage. Who said additives don't work?


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Feb 15, 2006)

Wow! I think I shall try to acquire at least one 16oz bottle of Acetone! I get a bit of black smoke at WOT, and author states 1-2oz per 10gal reduces that!

I have no Scangauge, but my Ram WILL tell me Avg. and instant (when I push a button).

And I record my mileage as a religon!


----------



## lingpau (Feb 15, 2006)

PlayboyJoeShmoe: Let us know your findings. I am also testing it in two vehicles. I have four other vehicles what will wait until I know the value of the additive. Even if it only cleans out the engine like an injector cleaner, it will have some value.( inexpensive compared to big name brand additives)Last year I installed a K&N air filter on my 03 Silverado and it seemed to give me more low end power and about 1-2 more miles/ gallon on Interstate trips.


----------



## hector (Feb 15, 2006)

Keeping the engine at the peak of it's torque curve, at least for highway driving. Thus, each stroke of the engine gives you maximum power. I think that's why some cars can get better mileage at a higher speed than a lower. Years ago when the speed limit was reduced to 55, truck drivers were all PO'd since they would have to retune their rigs to work most efficiently at the lower speed. 

This also expains why lower rpms aren't always better, if you are off the torque peak, then the lower rpms will work against you.


----------



## NeonLights (Feb 16, 2006)

hector said:


> Keeping the engine at the peak of it's torque curve, at least for highway driving. Thus, each stroke of the engine gives you maximum power. I think that's why some cars can get better mileage at a higher speed than a lower. Years ago when the speed limit was reduced to 55, truck drivers were all PO'd since they would have to retune their rigs to work most efficiently at the lower speed.
> 
> This also expains why lower rpms aren't always better, if you are off the torque peak, then the lower rpms will work against you.



I've heard this mentioned before, and used as a generality, it is just incorrect. I suppose there might be a few vehicles for which it is true, but for most vehicles this is just plain bull. Both our Mini Cooper and Ford Freestlye make peak torque at 4500 rpm. That would mean driving my Mini around on the freeway in 3rd or 4th gear instead of 5th, or travelling at 90 mph in 5th gear. None of which is condusive to good mpg. Maybe a large displacement vehicle or a diesel that makes peak torque below 3000 rpm might be close to this, but not on anything I've driven recently. The engine may operate most efficiently at peak torque, but that doesn't mean it is using the least amount of fuel possible. 

-Keith


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 16, 2006)

Neonlights is correct. When the torque curve and power demands meet you have the most efficient power output per amount of fuel used. Unfortunately, the power you need to move the car is often much, much, much lower than the max HP. Cruising on a level freeway at 55 MPH, for instance can require less than 40 HP depending on your car. 

All the truck drivers I talked to were PO'ed only about the lost time. If you were paid by the mile and told that you had to drive 15% less miles per day you'd get upset too. They already had enough gears to pick one that brought up the RPMs if they needed to. 

An efficient CVT is really the key to maximizing the milage. A CVT allows the engine to run at whatever speed is required to generate as little power as possible while still moving the car. 

Example of CVT 's value;
An imaginary car with a 3 spd auto plus overdrive. The Cd is .30. It needs 45 HP to maintain speed (55MPH) on the freeway.

It only has 4 choices of engine speed in order to go 55 MPH. 

1st gear would be 9000 RPM and 155 HP at 55 (beyond redline)
2nd gear would be 6000 RPM and 170 HP at 55
3rd gear would be 3000 RPM and 130 HP at 55
OD would be 1500 RPM and 65 HP at 55.

None of those are very realistic, but it illustrates why a CVT can have great advantages. Even in OD, the sample car is putting out more power than needed. It can't be much taller without being unusable at higher speeds.

My Prius has a CVT. The engine speed is not tied to the wheel speed. The engine can turn at any RPM while the car is moving at any speed. If I'm driving at 55 the engine is barely turning over. As I climb a hill the engine speed increases to create more power while the speed does not change at all.

Daniel


----------



## NeonLights (Feb 16, 2006)

Our Ford Freestyle has a CVT also. We've never gotten below 20 mpg with it, and average 23-25 mpg with mixed city/highway driving. Not great, but it is a 7-passenger vehicle that weighs 4000+ lbs. Most of our friends with minivans and SUV's are a little bit jealous of the mileage we get.

-Keith


----------



## cobb (Feb 16, 2006)

Thanks, wouldnt that be something if acetone is the key?

I still think my removal of the push rods will work, but not as much as I would expect. I mean, they already have engines that shut down a few cylinders to half on v8s, wouldnt that throw the balance out? THey just use a gizmo to render the rocker arms useless or the lifter so the valves stay close. I would remove the valve cover and remove the push rods to do the same. I will look at the firing order and test it when or if i get around to it. I hope to find a car or truck with TBI, two injectors one for each bank. Disconnect the TBI for one bank, the same one if it will work, remove the push rods for that side. So half cylinders working, half fuel being sprayd into engine. 

The torque curve thing is what the TDI forms was all about. THe diesel engine has a low torque curve, so using a higher 5th gear ratio for highway speed make the rpms needed lower, where it produced more power than at the higher rpms. I bet if playboy puts in a higher rear end gear and changes his shift points to the upper range of his torque curve than red line he could get close to 40mpg. THats unloaded. He may by SOL for any towing he does. Maybe he can get a secondary tranny with a converter or two speed diff?

I dont know about you guys, but I wouldnt rush out to put synth oil in an old engine. Ive heard you rish unseated the rings and causing excess oil consumption. I agree with it in the other parts, except an automatic tranny. I had a relative who had a sidekick 2 door convertible jeep thing and when he used synth he would get some rod knock at idle when driving. When he switched to regular oil that went away. You could lug it til it stalled without hearing the rods knocking.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Feb 16, 2006)

:sigh: I haven't acquired it yet due to three things. First, the local Hardware store had a quart can of "Acetone". But I could find no info if it was pure or had other components. And the article states you want 100% pure acetone. Second I was going to try McCoys in Cleveland, but we had no trailer tag when we went to Cleveland and I wasn't doing ANYTHING but get back to Shepherd without getting stopped!

Last chance during the workday... Autoparts store in Shepherd had a gallon that was Acetone only. But I don't have $17 bucks to spare.

One more chance later. Gotta get my sister from Shepherd and take her to Livingston to get her car. I'll hit Lowes and Wallyworld if neccesary....

I really want to make a test case tomorrow!


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 16, 2006)

Hey Joe! Don't forget to make a calibration run first without the acetone. If you add acetone first it may take months to get all of it out of your gas tank. If you don't drive exactly the same path the test is really pretty invalid. Humidity, wind, slight inclines and a million other factors can come into play.


Daniel


----------



## hector (Feb 16, 2006)

Hmm, 

Thanks for the posts about peak torque, seems much more complicated. I was only thinking of a reason why a higher highway speed would give better mileage, esp in trucks. If your car has the peak torque at 4,500 rpm, that's not conducive to good mileage. My piece of crap honda has peak torque at 3,000 rpm, and even that's a little high. I think this is why those hybrids with the tiny engines do well, they are WOT at highway speeds and on top of the torque curve.

One thing about the posts to remove spoilers, don't remove the front air dams. They save lots of gas, the less air that goes under your vehicle the better. The lower, the better. 

Eh, that's all I know.


----------



## hector (Feb 16, 2006)

PS, 

The acetone stuff sounds completely useless, being a former chemical engineer, that makes NO sense. That said, I will still get 16 oz and try it .


----------



## NeonLights (Feb 16, 2006)

cobb said:


> I dont know about you guys, but I wouldnt rush out to put synth oil in an old engine. Ive heard you rish unseated the rings and causing excess oil consumption. I agree with it in the other parts, except an automatic tranny. I had a relative who had a sidekick 2 door convertible jeep thing and when he used synth he would get some rod knock at idle when driving. When he switched to regular oil that went away. You could lug it til it stalled without hearing the rods knocking.



I've switched many cars to synthetic oil with high miles. I've switched four cars to synthetic with over 100,000 miles on them, and one car with over 200,000 miles. In every case no new leaks or oil consumption were created, but if the car leaked or burned oil before the switch, it would burn or leak a little more, but nothing significant. I've switched 8 or 9 used cars to synthetic, and no new leaks or other problems were ever created because of the switch.

Its funny you mentioned a Suzuki Sidekick. The only vehicle I really had to switch back when switching to synthetic oil was a 1989 Suzuki Sidekick I owned. It would burn/consume a quart of oil every 1000-1200 miles before the switch, and it would go through a quart every 500-600 miles with synthetic. Thing was the Sidekick only had about 20,000 miles on it when I switched. I switched back to dino oil and the consumption went back to 1000-1200 miles to a quart.

-Keith


----------



## lingpau (Feb 16, 2006)

Many years ago Gulf oil company had a Graphite oil that my Dad used and said improved his gas milage in the family car. I helped him change the oil and remember the stuff was BLACK to start with. I know he said that he had to add a quart of the graphite oil about every 1500 miles. The car did not burn or use regular oil, but he said the graphite oil was so slippery, he said it just kind of slipped past the rings or something. He was a mechanical engineer and just paid attention to those sort of things. Back in those days gas was only about 25 cents per gallon so nobody really cared that much about milage except getting better milage allowed you to go fruther between gas stations and make less stops on a long trip. Has anyone ever heard of Gulfs graphite oil? I have not seen any in at least 30 years. Now that I think of it, graphite is a great lubricant for metals. Maybe it clogged up oil filters or something so they discontinued it. Most likely, it didn't agree with something on modern cars.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Feb 16, 2006)

I got some acetone in a quart size at Wallyworld. I also got a measuring glass.

My Ram 2500 Cummins Diesel holds about 32 gallons. It is nearly full with about 30 miles on the odomiter. I added as close to 5oz. as I could.

At about 4:30AM I will drive about 4 miles, hook up a 5140lb trailer and do about 62mph for an hour or two. Maybe go a little faster on the south side of Houston going to Corpus. I'll drive about exactly like I have several times past. Only real difference will be the wind.

But what the heck? It's worth a couple of tries. :shrug:


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 17, 2006)

hector said:


> Hmm,
> 
> I think this is why those hybrids with the tiny engines do well, they are WOT at highway speeds and on top of the torque curve.



You have it bass-ackwards. Freeway driving needs less than 1/2 of the power capability of even the older Prius. The hybrid CVT lets the engine turn at the speed where it's generating exactly enough power to move the car. It's not Wide Open Throttle unless you are accelerating while climbing a hill at 65. Even then, it backs off fairly quick since there are no grades that go up forever and you eventually want to stop accelerating. 

The Prius atkimson cycle engine is more anemic than most putting out only 70ish HP, but it's hidden by the CVT and the tirque from the electric motor.

One of the tricks used by the Toyota hybrids is to run the engine a little faster than is needed to maintain speed (to get it at it's most fuel efficient) and use the excess energy to charge the battery pack. Then it kills the engine and runs on battery alone for little ways. Maybe a mile or two. Then it repeats the cycle.

You could create a car that ran at it's peak when on the freeway. My dad's old volkswagon Ghia was basically wide open at 65. It could not pass anything at freeway speeds and slowed down (a lot) when climbing hills if all 4 of us kids were crammed in there. It was still a fun car. It would not be considered acceptable today.

Good luck on your test, Joe!


Daniel


----------



## chamenos (Feb 17, 2006)

Regarding idling in gear with an automatic transmission, I've observed that different cars with EFI deal with this differently.

In a 2001 Toyota Rav4, putting the car in gear with the brakes applied would result in a slight decrease in RPM. Shift it to neutral and the RPM would go back to about 800. This would indicate the amount of petrol being injected into the cylinders remains unchanged.

With a 2005 Honda Integra (Acura RSX), doing the same results in the RPM dropping slightly, before rising to maintain approximately 800 RPMs. Shifting it back to neutral would result in a slight rise in the RPM, followed immediately by a quick drop back to to 800 RPMs.

Thus it seems to me that with the Rav4, shifting the car to neutral at a traffic light would not save any fuel, but doing the same with the Integra would.


----------



## Lightmeup (Feb 17, 2006)

For you acetone fans, here is an article I ran across:
http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/2598


----------



## markdi (Feb 17, 2006)

putting a car with a automatic in netural decreases the load on the engine so it takes less energy to maintain idle rpm.

less air and fuel is pumped thru the engine.

rpm is not linked to absolute power generated in a piston engine


5000 rpm under load is different than 5000 rpm under no load.


----------



## Manzerick (Feb 17, 2006)

Try Lucas fuel treatment. It's cheap (I got a deal with a local guy for under $3.00 a bottle) and has real results. I worked for Auto Palace, AutoZone, Auto parts plus and Advanced Auto in my day and needless to say, have tried ALL additatives. The Lucas is the first to show true MPG gains. Also, Mobil One synthetic and Amsoil are the bomb! The car runs cooler even after a oil change... cool is good


----------



## twentysixtwo (Feb 17, 2006)

Sorry if I came off a little harsh in my last post, but there are some pretty amazingly ridiculous things people are selling that promise a 20% or greater jump in FE - a recent issue of Popular Mechanics debunked a number of them.

I certainly don't trust big companies to be all knowing or always working in the interest of the public, but I've spent time working for one of the Big 3 doing FE and as someone else pointed out, there are a huge number of tradeoffs and you can't get something for free. Anything that adds power and fuel economy is very likely to do something else (hurt emissions, noise, cost, etc) Will a K&N air filter help FE? Yes, but it also lets more junk into our engine and also costs a lot more than a paper filter. High flow cat back exhaust? It'll work, but now you'll be illegal (if your local LE choose to enforce) plus they're not cheap. 

The real problem with a lot of these alternative snake oil salesmen is they try to convince you that the big auto or oil companies have this conspiracy to give you poor FE - like the urban legend about the 80 mpg carb whose inventor gets buried in the desert or the car that runs on water where the invention gets bought out and destroyed by the oil companies.

These conspiracy theories, like ULs about snuff films and hypodermic needles in pay phones are one of my pet peeves. Anyways, I'll get off my soapbox now......


----------



## Flying Turtle (Feb 17, 2006)

Being an unrepentant cheapskate I have trouble justifying the cost of synthetic oil. All of my cars for the last thirty years have made it past 100K with a minimun of oil burning. At that point it is usually some other non-engine related repair need or just the new car bug that gets me to trade. I suppose if you regularly drove 30K/yr. and insisted on getting 250K out of a vehicle it would make sense, but I see little reason to add to my expenses when I won't see a return at trade-in time. And, yes, I know I should keep a vehicle longer if I am truly a cheapskate, but after 8 or 10 years even I need a change. Is there really a measurable difference in fuel efficiency from using synthetic oil?

Geoff


----------



## zespectre (Feb 17, 2006)

slightly off topic, I wonder how a CVT would work for off road use.


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 17, 2006)

Off road? I think it depends on how the power needs to be transmitted. I seem to recall that off-roaders like manual trannies so they can determine how much torque (or how little) is applied to the wheels. 

Daniel


----------



## cobb (Feb 17, 2006)

Keith, I think the smaller engine burn a bit more oil than larger ones to an extent because of the higher rpms they can run they build them a bit looser. The larger size engines just have more surface area for oil to go by, so it kind of goes down for mid size engines, then back up. My uncle had a geo metro that burned a quart every 500 miles, turned out the cam seal was leaking. 

I know what they say about synth oil, I think its wonders in manual trannys, but Id stick with 20w50 in an engine. I favor castrol or havoline myself.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Feb 17, 2006)

586.2 miles on about 32.5 gallons of diesel with about 5oz Acetone report.

Smoking is gone. Long time of no WOT coming back to Shepherd. WOT. No smoke then or earlier pulling full tank. Absolutely believable and good result.

Cranking seems to take a few less revs, and seems to start sooner. Good result.

Mileage is a head scratcher. On this trip south driving perhaps even less agressivly due to rain took my average down to 19.2. I clearly remember 19.8 a few months back.
The average for getting fuel yesterday, going to Wallyworld last night, leaving Shepherd with a 5140lb trailer to almost into DT Corpus, pulling it back, backing it in and going to fill up again was 18.15 which I THINK is somewhat better overall than a few months ago. Inconclusive. 

I STILL believe winterized fuel may be causing a drop.

Anyhow in todays fillup I placed about 5.4oz of acetone. And will do more testing.

Oh, could be true or a figment... it SEEMS to have crisper response and a bit more power. Inconclusive.


----------



## hector (Feb 17, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> One of the tricks used by the Toyota hybrids is to run the engine a little faster than is needed to maintain speed (to get it at it's most fuel efficient) and use the excess energy to charge the battery pack. Then it kills the engine and runs on battery alone for little ways. Maybe a mile or two. Then it repeats the cycle.
> 
> Daniel



Sounds to me like they are trying to get closer to the ideal of WOT and being on top of the torque curve.


----------



## lingpau (Feb 17, 2006)

Playboy Joe Shmoe; Keep us posted. My son reports he is getting better milage on his 1993 Nisson Sentra.(5 mpg)I am putting 2 oz of acetone per 10 gallons in his gas.This is his second tankfull of gas/acetone mix. He does mixed driving and being 18 years old, he doesn't know the meaning of taking it easy on the accelerator! I am sure he isn't going slower or easier on the starts.( I wish he was) He also reports the engine seems to run smoother.(maybe it cleaned out his injectors) His car has 105,000 miles on it.


----------



## cobb (Feb 17, 2006)

Playboy, its likely that the 5mpg increase the other guy got was a fraction result. So since the car he is using is smaller and likely gets bettery millage than your truck, he got a more significant gain than you are getting. 

They say getting 5-7 mpg in a atruck vs a 40-50 mpg increase in a car, the 5-7mpg increase it a better gain in the truck and harder to gain. 

I truely think with the low torque curve on the cummins engine, if you can force your tranny to shift at the upper end of that curve before it starts to drop off you can get mroe mpg out of your truck. Whats the red line 3grand? Whats the max torque produced 1300 rpm? I think the gale banks or bulley dog system allows you to change the shift points of the tranny and allows you to reverse the effects if it does not work right. 

Just think playboy if you can get a 2 speed differential and can shift into a higher final drive to drive around unloaded, while leaving a lower option to allow towing when needed.


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 18, 2006)

hector said:


> Sounds to me like they are trying to get closer to the ideal of WOT and being on top of the torque curve.



Not really. I don't have a tach, but I can tell from the sound that at freeway speeds on level ground it's loafing along. I know what WOT sounds like, since the RPMs climb quickly as you start to climb a really steep hill.

The peak of the torque curve is where the maximum POWER is produced, but it's not necessarily the most FUEL efficient point when it comes to pushing a car. Running at WOT is overkill since it would require that most of the power be converted to electricity for storage and then converted back to motion again. That's about a sizable loss right there.

Daniel


----------



## cyberhobo (Feb 18, 2006)

cyberhobo said:


> This is how you get more mpg:
> 
> 
> http://pesn.com/2005/03/17/6900069_Acetone/ :naughty:


 

...SEEEEEE!


----------



## NeonLights (Feb 18, 2006)

cobb said:


> Keith, I think the smaller engine burn a bit more oil than larger ones to an extent because of the higher rpms they can run they build them a bit looser. The larger size engines just have more surface area for oil to go by, so it kind of goes down for mid size engines, then back up. My uncle had a geo metro that burned a quart every 500 miles, turned out the cam seal was leaking.



That hasn't really been my experience though. I've had 4-cylinder engines that were 1.3L, 1.6L, 1.8L, 1.9L, 2.0L, and 2.3L, and the only one I had problems with high consumption was the Suzuki Sidekick which I believe was 1.6L. The Suzuki Samurai that I owned before it with an even smaller engine didn't consume an abnormally high amount of oil when using dino or synthetic. I used to take my 2.0 Dodge Neon to above 8000 rpm a couple times a day and it used a quart of Mobil 1 every 2000-3000 miles which was within normal tolerances.

-Keith


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Feb 18, 2006)

Cobb, it would be cool to switch into a higher overdrive when unloaded. Really cool!

But we are a small company and we could never make it happen.

My truck has a 4spd lockup auto, 3.7x rear end rato. It runs right at 2000 RPM at 70 mph. The most efficient flat road speed is about 58mph at 1600rpm. Throw in hills and 63 works a little better as it doesn't lose so much momentum on the down side.

Chances are decent that perhaps 1750rpm at 70 would be better, but there is no easy way to find out.

Still, over 18mpg towing and near 20 empty for an 8,000lb aerodymanic BRICK ain't too shabby. Only other vehicle in our bunch that can get 20 is the Towncar. The gas trucks all struggle to top 15.

More acetone testing is on my agenda....


----------



## Brock (Feb 18, 2006)

Flying Turtle said:


> Being an unrepentant cheapskate I have trouble justifying the cost of synthetic oil. All of my cars for the last thirty years have made it past 100K with a minimum of oil burning. At that point it is usually some other non-engine related repair need or just the new car bug that gets me to trade. I suppose if you regularly drove 30K/yr. and insisted on getting 250K out of a vehicle it would make sense, but I see little reason to add to my expenses when I won't see a return at trade-in time. And, yes, I know I should keep a vehicle longer if I am truly a cheapskate, but after 8 or 10 years even I need a change. Is there really a measurable difference in fuel efficiency from using synthetic oil?Geoff



I used to be the same way, 2 cars over 200k on dino oil. I changed the oil every 3333, it was easy to remember, say 30k, 33.33k, 36.666k and so on. I started sending in the oil for testing and found dino oil was pretty much used up about that same time. I switched to Mobil Delvac 1 (because it was required in the diesel) from dino in the van and got about a 5% increase in mileage. That increase alone would pay for the cost difference between dino and synthetic oil. I slowly extend oil changes out to 10k now and oil analysis still comes back much better then dino did at 2k, the oil analysis suggestion was about 15k changes with this synthetic oil, but 10k works for me.

So while changing dino oil regularly is likely fine for the engine, your giving up extended change intervals and using a lot more fuel and oil over time.

Also synthetic oils start thinner and lubricate the engine faster once started, now if you don’t start the engine and drive it hard it doesn’t matter as much, but my wife drives the van so…


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Feb 18, 2006)

Hmm... I change the Rotella T 15W-40 at about as close to 5,000 as I can manage. It takes 3 gallons each time. Rotella T 15W-40 costs us about $8.00 a gallon. Rotella Syn 5W-40 costs nearly $18 a gallon.

I'd LOVE to run the Synthetic stuff now. My Cummins has a bit over 50 thou on it.

But I don't see it happening....

Incidently when the oil comes out at 5K it looks DAMN good. When I ran out to about 8K due to issues it was considerably nastier but still seemed nicer than what came out of the F350 at 5K!!!

And until the injector pump died on the F350, it was at over 300,000 miles on Dino oil... and running just fine.


----------



## hector (Mar 28, 2006)

gadget_lover said:


> Not really. I don't have a tach, but I can tell from the sound that at freeway speeds on level ground it's loafing along. I know what WOT sounds like, since the RPMs climb quickly as you start to climb a really steep hill.
> 
> The peak of the torque curve is where the maximum POWER is produced, but it's not necessarily the most FUEL efficient point when it comes to pushing a car. Running at WOT is overkill since it would require that most of the power be converted to electricity for storage and then converted back to motion again. That's about a sizable loss right there.
> 
> Daniel



Two different arguments, one that WOT is bad, but that's where the Prius opts for. WOT is good for torque, bad for horsepower. That said, peak of torque is NOT where power is produced, PEAK horsepower is where rpms X TORQUE are the highest.


----------



## gadget_lover (Mar 28, 2006)

I probably misspoke when I used the term WOT. When the Prius climbs a steep hill, the ICE starts up (if it was off) and it runs the engine up to a fairly high RPM. The RPMS fall for some reason after a short time. 

My post was in response to the assertion that the Prius runs WOT (implying maximum possible rpm) while loafing down the freeway. That is definitely not true. The ICE runs at some speed that has been predetermined to be the most efficient for the conditions. That speed is not anywhere near redline.

My post said "Originally Posted by gadget_lover
One of the tricks used by the Toyota hybrids is to run the engine a little faster than is needed to maintain speed (to get it at it's most fuel efficient) and use the excess energy to charge the battery pack. Then it kills the engine and runs on battery alone for little ways. Maybe a mile or two. Then it repeats the cycle."

Hector's post seemed to imply that the engine was running drastically harder than needed to maintain vehicle speed simply to charge batteries. That just aint true.

Daniel


----------



## hector (Mar 28, 2006)

Eh, I probably mis-spoke too, WOT on a small engine at it's torque peak (not peak HP and much higher RPM) gives the most efficiency, but it's not practical for a typical car. Sometimes you need to go over 55 mph . 

The part I still am confused about is how throttle opening relates to peak torque. Seems you would lose a lot of efficiency. 

Eh, the only thing that works consistently for me is just slowing down.


----------



## cobb (Apr 16, 2006)

Think I should tackle switching the final drive to a higher gear in a ford e250 inline 6 4.9 l van? Has a 4speed tranny with od. I am guessing the stock is about 4 to 1. Lowest aftermarket kit Ive found is 3.08 to 1. 194 bucks with bearings. 

What about grounding 3 of the 6 cylinders to see how it handles, idlebefore I remove the push rods to 3 of the 6 cylinders and unplug 3 of the 6 injectors?

It has torque, easy to squeal tires and it doesnt labor at all. Id say 0-60 in 7 seconds. Really dificult to floor it as it squeals too fast. 

Think the TDI VW forum would mind me with a ford van on their website?


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Apr 16, 2006)

Often times a van like that is used to carry a ton or two of tools and equipment.

If you aren't gonna do that, a numerically shorter gear ratio SHOULD help.

Does it have a Tach? Do you know your RPMS at 70 mph?

My RAM does 2000RPM at 70. Much shorter gearing and I would hurt the acceleration.

I can see a benefit to having another gear or overdrive unit however.


----------



## cobb (Apr 16, 2006)

No tach, but it does highway speed at just a bit more than idle. If you are not careful you can easily max out the speed meter on i295 when you hit the 65 mph zone and it will creap up to 80 by itself. It seems to effortlessly go and hold speed. I should try turing OD on and off to hear the difference. 

A friend use to have a k1500 4x4 truck with a 350 v8 and man, it use to always down shift to first, rev up and labor to increase in speeds. I think that truck was lighter than my van. That truck, if you floor it going less than 35 it would dip to first and go up to 5gs and then hit second, slowly reach 60 and hit third. I do not think this van has down shifted to first yet, at least its hard to or you squeal tires or you reach the speed limit in a few seconds. 

Its title says it weighs 4886 lbs. You wouldnt know it by dirving it, but you do see it in the construction under it.

Yeah, the van is ment to haul and its just got a 300 pound fat guy driving it. Its grown on me and if a 200 dollar ring and pinion gear can almsot double the fuel economy, I want to do it.

I will write that guy in the hybrid utility truck article Iread where he recommended using a 3.42 vs 4.10 final drive for economy vs towing capacity. He claimed 6mpg gain, 15 to 21 on a diesel f550 with 18900 lbs tower and full tool body. At least thats what the article said.


----------



## gadget_lover (Apr 16, 2006)

5 MPG sounds like an impressive gain. Just do the math before you put out for the hardware. The final ratio you are looking at is about 1/5 taller. That shoudl mean that you have (effectively) 1/5 less horsepower at the wheels if I remember correctly. Or is it 1/5 less torque? Hmmmmm. I don't recall.

Either way, that reduction in power is multiplied by the fact that the engine will be turning slower. You can look up the power curve for your specific engine.. If the engine is barely above idle at freeway speed it is already in overdrive, so lowering it by 20% may take you right out of the power band. 

Oh, don't forget to get your spedo recalibrated if you change the gearing. You don't want your speed and odometer to be off. 

Daniel


----------



## changsn (Apr 17, 2006)

Been reading this thread with interest since gas prices are around $3 again. Wanted to comment however on the use of acetone. I think it's great that people are trying to verify whether it helps or not. Unfortunately, I am in the camp which says - no way. This stuff has been around for ages, and if it really improved mileage by 5mpg someone would have been all over this - like flashaholics on a U bin. This is like reinventing the wheel. People have looked into this and the answer is 'it don't work'. 

One key in checking your mileage is to be sure you fill up to the same level in the tank. Each nozzle fills slightly differently and to be sure, you need to do multiple runs to average out the different fill levels.

Other tips to improve mileage - perhaps obvious:
1. Start your engine when you are ready to go, not when you get into the car. Lots of people get in, start the engine and futz around with the mirrors, seatbelt, heater, etc before actually moving the car.
2. Use your brakes as little as possible - need to be careful here, but as long as you are safe, minimizing the brakes means not wasting your momentum.
3. Kill the engine as you pull into your parking space. Many spaces are drive in and as you do that you can often times turn the engine off a few seconds before you actually stop. Won't save you much, but every drop counts.

Sam


----------



## cobb (Apr 18, 2006)

I got a 53 gallon tank if anything in that manual is right, that should take a good qt of acetone, if it works. 

I got a rejection from the mail deamon writing the guy in that article about swapping the rear end gears. I did find another article online about swapping http://www.4wheelpartsadventures.com/pastIssues/0410-issue/041018d-gearhead.html

You are right Daniel, I want to go to the extreme to the point I may need to leave the OD lock out on. If it is too tall, I can always switch it out and resell it or try to return if it undamaged.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Apr 18, 2006)

If it just loafs along at 65, you may already have a 3.73 or so back there.

If you have a gas engine, I don't know if Acetone is recommended. I don't find it worth much in mileage, but I do find my Ram more happy at starting and it SEEMS to be more peppy.


----------



## cobb (Apr 23, 2006)

After riding in a few American made v8 trucks and cars, this van is a bit of a mystery. 

Anyway, I drove it for 4 hours this weekend up and down the road near my parents house. Dad said I get a B in driving. 

One thing about it, it just loths along with just a half inch pressing of the petal. If I am on loose rocks or the sand/dirt of my parnets yard it will start to spin and the speed meter jumps to 10mph. At that point i left off the gas and it coasts up to 15mph on its own at idle. 

At 35 it seems to take a bit more petal to get it to jump up to 45 than up to 35. After that it seems to creep up to 60. I turned off od today at 35 and nothing, turns out it is in 3rd gear at that point. 

Pressing it 1/4 travel gives some nice acceleration and easily 60mph or more if I didnt left off. I drove a chevy k1500 and it wasnt as smooth and took more petal travel to get up to speed. 

Still after looking at the differential with no tag, talking to a few guys and parts counter people at pep boys, we are still in the dark if its a dana 60 or ford 8.8. Seems it maybe a dana 60 with the 8.8 rear cover. The dana is supposed to have drain and fill plugs, the 8.8 none.


----------



## raggie33 (Apr 23, 2006)

i miss driveing so bad .if i had a car or motor cycle id drive to the moutains im so close to em now but to far to walk


----------



## cobb (May 6, 2006)

Anyone considered attaching a check valve to the vacuum modulator? Thats the thingie on an auto trans that allows you to go into OD if the car isnt under a load.

Whats the word on WOT in general and efficiency? I think that VW forum may of caused some confusion as the diesel ones from what Ive read use a smoke map in the injection system, so you do not unnecessarly dump extra wasteful fuel in the engine like you would with a standard non computer diesel or a gas car. The vw forum said to floor it in all 5 gears hitting 5th gear at 35mph. Basically just shy of lugging it and sinc eit has a high low rpm torque curve you can do that. 

I just cant believe the fuel economy guide website that my inline 6 4.9l gas motor in my 96 ford econlone e250 van gets less than the v6 or v8. I need to get the hp map on the engine and see where the torque is. Maybe get a cam ground or one that is already for max torque at low rpm, then later on a matching torque converter and some shifting improvements if I keep the thing. Would make for an interesting project. 

Then there is always switching out the od gear vs the differential one. I gather from the last article I read a high od gear can negate the low final drive. Ive assumed the transmission without the check valve on the modulator would do the right thing and worse to worse, I can disable OD for towing or hauling.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (May 6, 2006)

Another little tidbit about Acetone...

For the last three fillups, I've used at the most 3.5oz. This is down from 6-7 prior. 
This takes the ratio from 2-2.5oz to 10 Gallons down to 1-1.25oz to 10.

I may in fact be getting slightly more mileage as my instant readout has trended higher recently.

My testing is all VERY informal, as I use a measuring glass to get "close" to my chosen ratio.

A link to the study for your reading pleasure:
http://www.lubedev.com/smartgas/additive.htm


----------



## cobb (May 6, 2006)

Ive considered the great acetone challenge and was going to ask how it was going. Ive considered doing it, but with a 55 gallon tank, I would need a few quarts I guess to get it mixed right. Wonder what the ratio is to get it right for fuel economy?


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (May 6, 2006)

Read the link! About 2oz. per 10Gal is supposed to be good for diesel (I find a bit less to be better).

I remember a higher ratio for gas but not what the ratio is....

For 55 gallons I'd probably try 11oz. to start with.

I buy quart size cans, but you might want to get gallon size.... as I _THINK_ you'll want a higher ratio.

READ THE LINK!


----------



## cobb (May 11, 2006)

The myth busters tried acetone and it made the fuel economy worse. They tried a few other gizmos adn they did not work. The engine did run from bottled hydrogen and they think using used filtered vegetables oil in a diesel car was the best bet.


----------



## hector (May 11, 2006)

Thanks, that saved me spending money on acetone, I was almost convinced, and I should should know better, heck, we all should. 

What about mixing a little diesel with the gas ? Diesel has more energy per gallon (140,000 btu's per gallon vs 114,000 btus) .


----------



## cobb (May 11, 2006)

I havent tried acetone, so I cant say. Sometimes the myth busters do not take all the needed procedures and from what Ive read the mixture of acetone seems to be very sensitive.

I dont think you can mix diesel with gas, diesel has a centane rating which is the reverse of octane and it would knock very bad depending on mixture and engine setup. I believe you can safely mix keroscene with diesel, however its illegal cause of the taxes diesel is charged for road use and keroscene is not. Beats me how much keroscene costs and if it is any cheaper to mix.

Furthermore, I ve read a few articles regardng use of vegetable oil in diesel engines. Not all can burn raw vegetable oil that has been filtered. Some require it to be preheated to 150 degrees, others just cant use it and it must be treated to remove the glicerin, IE bio diesel. I think mtv runs a sweeper where a diesel motorhome uses preheated vegetable oil using the cooling system of theengine. They start it on diesel and switch to vegetable oil. 

I think that is a real alternative energy, assuming you recsue used garbage vegetable oil from fryers and use it as fuel. If you take vegetables adn make oil from them, then its a rather wasteful process. Regardless its just a matter of time before supply and demand becomes an issue with the alternative diesel fuel and it becmes equalivent to the same proce and limited avaliability. 

If I had a diesel car and could use vegetable oil, I would meet with no name mom and pop restaurants and work out a deal to secure your supply of fuel. Maybe get a few tanks and hand or battery operated pumps to help remove the oil and store it safely.


----------



## Alin10123 (May 12, 2006)

Honestly the best way to get extra MPG out of your vehicle is properly inflated tires, properly maintained vehicle, and driving like you have an egg under your foot. 
There's this dude on the Acura TSX forums that i'm a member of. The dude got like 48mpg as his record i think. It's crazy! The car is only rated for 30mpg highway. Which is actually gets BTW. I got 35MPG on a recent trip driving 70mph average the whole way.


----------



## spock (May 12, 2006)

years ago, a friend of mine had a 1985 ford tempo diesel with manual tranny. usually got 54 mpg on the freeway. found one for sale about a year ago. called immediately and was about the 25th caller. a lot of people seem to be looking for this car. i get my best mileage by just driving easy. good oil cuts friction, and make sure eng. is up to operating temperature. as an alternative, you might try to build a moodymobile, but ralph moody isn't talking.


----------



## twentysixtwo (May 12, 2006)

Mixing diesel with gas is a BAD idea. I've seen it done (by accident) and your call will put out smoke like James Bond was driving it.


----------



## IsaacHayes (May 12, 2006)

Replaced my O2 sensor, and wow, what a difference. I bet I'm getting better gas mileage than some of my friends 4cylinders now. I'm sure it's been mentioned, but yeah, it helps a lot. (was driving on original one with 180,000 miles on it.. hahha)


----------



## Brock (May 12, 2006)

On the acetone front a bunch of VW diesel owners have been running their own tests over on
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=128493
if anyone wants to follow that as well.


----------



## paulr (May 12, 2006)

I notice diesel around here is cheaper per gallon than gas. That makes no sense, diesel has higher btu/gal and it must take more crude to make a gallon of it.

My car (1998 Civic) got 30mpg or so when I bought it new and was stable at that level across several 3750 mi oil changes and I figured that was what I should expect. But eventually I had a 30,000 mile scheduled service where they did a whole bunch of stuff, and the mileage shot up to 34-36 or so. I find that nothing that I do (driving style etc) changes the mileage very much. My main strategy for fuel savings is simply to not drive very much. If I have an out-of-town work assignment longer than a few days, I usually rent a cheap room local to the assignment and only drive home on weekends, instead of dealing with a 30+ mile commute. This is tax deductable (business expense) and saves a lot of stress and distractions in addition to gas.


----------



## Brock (May 12, 2006)

paulr said:


> I notice diesel around here is cheaper per gallon than gas. That makes no sense, diesel has higher btu/gal and it must take more crude to make a gallon of it.



Diesel is also a lot easier to make then a gallon of gas, requiring about half the energy (lots of electricity) needed to refine it so that makes it cheaper. The flip side is diesel is very similar to home heating oil so in the fall diesel typically gets more expensive and in the spring diesel is usually the cheapest, like now. While gasoline is usually in the highest demand in spring and early summer pushing prices up.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (May 12, 2006)

If (such a BIG word!) I could post over there on the TDI forum I'd say this:

I run about 1.25 Oz. per 10 gallons of diesel. I don't really notice a mileage increase.

I DO know that my truck starts faster, and doesn't blow black smoke at WOT.

I FEEL that it has a bit more pep too.

I notice a LOT of those guys drive 80 and beyond! I try to do 65 as a maximum, and I'll bet they could even get better mileage at my kind of speeds!


----------



## cobb (Jun 1, 2006)

I can tell you guys one thing. Using od even at low speeds such as 25 and 35mph improves fuel economy. I burned 44 dollars worth of gas in 40 something miles with just od turned off. I turned it on as wanted to evaluate the effects on my slipping and I only burned a quarter tank to go the same distance. 

On a ford, you push the button on the end of the gear shifter and a yellow display says something about od disabled or something. Push again to turn it back on. 

BTW, didnt effect my slippage.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Jun 2, 2006)

Cobb, I last drove a pretty worn out 1990 F350 Diesel with the same tranny you have (E4OD). What it sounds like MIGHT be happening is your torque convertor slipping. I had a switch to turn mine off, and you could REALLY tell a difference. 

Though I had to be going 35 or more in 3rd to feel it.

Do you notice ANY difference between OD on and OD off as far as shifting and acceleration???


----------



## cobb (Jun 2, 2006)

One thing my tranny does is hunts, it never seems to get the right gear. Heck, it even shifts sitting still at a stop light. Nothing like sitting at a stop light and hear and feel something and watch your amp meter blurp a bit one way or the other and hear your idle raise or drop some. 

I think its easier/faster to accelerate with OD on and easier to maintain exact speeds with it off.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Jun 2, 2006)

I again wonder if it isn't all related.

The ONLY reason for a TPS (throttle position sensor) on the 1990 F350 Diesel was to tell the E4OD what to do.

I KNOW on a gasser it talks to the 'puter, but I wonder if it don't talk to the tranny too?

Maybe someone knows!


----------



## twentysixtwo (Jun 7, 2006)

Not positive but I think the tranny on your 1990 Ford isn't electronic - shift schedule is hydraulic....I think the OD lockout is via a solenoid.

IIRC first high volume Ford trans in the US with electronic shift schedules was on the Contour/Mystique.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Jun 8, 2006)

You could be right 26-2, but when I put a new TPS on it it acted goofy until I got it adjusted right. Mostly wouldn't shift at decent RPMs.


----------



## cobb (Jun 8, 2006)

Yup.... Of course since Ive been to Ashland twice now for an interview, things have changed. After it warms up, it slips for real. Difficult to drive unless you baby it at that point. Also the whole inside of the van seems to fill with heat, the temp meter goes from middle to cold side, it barely wants to crank and the radiator boils over when I park it. I put a 10 degree cooler thermostat in it and its slam full of water and antifreeze. 

I really am unsure what to do. Anything I do to it would cost me money, including driving it. I need a second job or one that pays more. Even if I sell it and drive my dads benz, its 25 years old, well over 400k miles, gets 25mpg and he wants to do the paper schuffle fr me to own it then give it back and insure it, that alone is about 170 bucks in fees at dmv. 

My grade idea was to park it at my folks house, take the benz as is. Then when it gets cool out again, trade back. 

Yeah, its my understanding the e40d uses computer controlled solonoids in a pack to move fluid around the valve body to make it shift.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Jun 8, 2006)

Doesn't sound like a horrid idea, if the Benz is mechanically sound. If/when it needs work the Ford will seem CHEAP!

Bummer about all the problems with the Van, but you did get it for half of book....


----------



## cobb (Jun 8, 2006)

Yeah. Kind of goes to shows you need to watch used cars and regardless of who is selling a car, you need to examine it. 

In retrospec, the van would of passed an inspection by me regardless unless its driven more than 10 miles in the mid 80s temps. Sure the tranny fluid was dark brown, but it did not smell. A computer check turned up just emmission codes and even if I drove it, it would of seemed ok til I got 10 or more miles on it behind the wheel. 

Out the gate with moderate petal travel it drives fine. Trying to baby it makes it shift out of whack and when it warms up, boy it warms up and starts to shift/slip funny, radiator boils over and its hard to start. 

Although using od gives more or about twice the fuel economy even driving at 35mph, I am still out on rather its more efficient to gun and run or baby it. It is more drivable the 5 miles to and from work using that method through the city, stop light to stop light and stop sign. I can go 0-35 in 3 seconds with 1/4-1/2 throttle. 

I will try to make a better effort to mark the gas meter, pump in ten gallons and log my miles. I use my tripo meter to find places with internet directions, so its hard to get an accurate miles traveled since fill up. 

I think driving the benz through the city would get better fuel economy since it does not have OD and you can put it in 4th gear at 30mph. After that you rev it faster and faster til at highway speeds its like having one of those commercial diesel generators running at 3600rpms. I am not sure where the point is where wind resistance eats into the fuel needed to make the engine run vs maintain the speed limit. I imagine the lowest rpms at the highest gear would be a start. Then again, so much fuel is needed for the engine to just idle, not along turn at a higher rpm and deliver more power. I suspect since using od on and off on my van and the change in fuel economy suggests 35 mph maybe a start at the optimun fuel economy speed. I expect it to be low snce its not that aero dynamic. The more aero a car is, I suspect the higher the optimun speed is.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Jun 10, 2006)

Are you saying the Benz has a standard 4 speed tranny? If so, and it is shifting good and the clutch is good, that should pose NO problems.

Dads truck got the E4OD replaced with a salvage yard unit. It shifts into reverse fine, but if placed in D it will take off in D.

If shifted down to first, it goes in first. Shift to second, no change. Shift to D and BANG! into D.

We think it is the shift sensor on the side of the tranny. More testing/swapping begins Monday. Just goes to show how complex this stuff is!


----------



## cobb (Jun 10, 2006)

Well..... the auto tranny is a bit of a mystery for most and adding electronics further adds to the mystery of the inner workings. 

On a side note, the commercial trucks we sell went from manual to auto trannys over night. Seems many businesses like them since the operators are unable for the most part to break anything and others like them for the ease of use in relation to manual trannys. We always add a starter cut out switch so the guys cant grind the starter once its started, then turn it off and when it fails to start, get a break til its fixed. 

While I was on the innerstate the other day I was behind a few semi trucks and beside them. Amazing the slip stream Ive so often heard about. Ive assumed the slip stream worked best for small cars, not large vans. 

I know trucks hate it and you need to keep a distance between you and cars, but its rather hard when you got folks pulling on the highway, merging, etc. While I was behind a few semi trucks, it was amazing I was doing the speed limit with no foot on the gas petal. It was like I was being SUCKED right up behind the truck. Soon as I got 4-5 extended body van lenghts from the truck I started to drop speed like a rock and had to give it more gas. 

I got 68 miles on my last 10 gallon fill up and its only 3/4 used. Maybe I should skip the city streets for a brief jolt on the innerstate to work next week? At least at 7am its not that crowded. I doubt it would be productive to take at 5 in the afternoons.


----------

