Any MECHANICAL/CHEMICAL mileage booster?

Ok, we all know that bad driving habits cause bad gas mileage. I think mine are pretty darn conservative after taking tips from everywhere i can so leave the habits out. I'm talking about something that can be done to the car, aside from regular maintenance that can boost mileage. From acetone in the gas tank (4 mpg actually!) to a "higher flow" air filter (none) and everything in-between the two. What can be done to a vehicle to make it get better gas mileage? Feasibly of course, nothing drastic like replacing the engine or buying a new car. Using a current vehicle, what can you do to it to get better MPG?

I await the replies with milk (apparently) and popcorn. :popcorn::popcorn:
(and the usual reproach for bringing up an undoubtedly old topic, search is busted...)
(should be a stickied topic?)

acetone/xylol in the gasoline. ------ Success

reportedly the chemical mechanics of it is that adding the chemicals works to "stir up" the gas on a molecular level to allow better vaporization of the fuel in the cylinder when added. The reported best ratio is 3oz acetone and 1oz xylol per 10 gallons gas. Some also add miniscule amounts of 2 stroke oil, haven't tried this one, it just doesn't seem chemically sound.

it is argued that this acts only to clean the engine out and will decrease in performance after a while, also that acetone destroys fuel lines. I have not seen the decrease yet and my fuel lines are metal.

I have been running this for a few weeks now and wether or not it cleans or vaporizes better I have seen a marked (5 mpg) improvement in gas mileage. I got my trailblazer last december and all Jan-Feb I have been getting 13-16 mpg on my commute to and from college. All flat highway, about 60 miles, all cruise control when possible. I began adding this mix about 5 weeks ago and have been getting 19-24 and above on the same trip with no other differences that I can see unless my gas station has changed formulas on me. I measure with a ScanGuageII (nifty gadget) and am thouroughly convinced this works.



Water4Gas type device ----- Untested
Have not used/tried but it is said to work by running battery current through distilled water and baking soda to make HHO (they say) and this is taken in through the manifold via a vacuum line and through the air intake and is reported to have almost magical mileage benefits.

Any thoughts on this? I am almost tempted to try this out, It sounds chemically feasible and doesn't seem like it would blow up the engine.

acetone destroys fuel lines.......and my fuel lines are metal.


Likely your fuel lines do have rubber(neoprene) or rubber-lined components in your lines, in the flexible portion of the line where it attaches to the engine's fuel rail.

I do not know for sure if acetone will destroy fuel lines, but a leak at the flexible portion may result in fuel being sprayed (at 35 psi) all over your engine, resulting in a severe fire hazard.

Then you really will have a Trailblazer :frown:

Ive seen some people say that its a problem, ive seen others say that its not, dont really know but especially noting the extremely small percentage of acetone in the fuel im not worried. heck, if it does blow up, i get a new car yay usaa, or new life, or death... either way, im really not all that worried. and while im sure that there is some rubber in there somewhere, i have traced it from tank to engine all three lines are metal on the outside, i was rather shocked at that one...

Ive seen some people say that its a problem, ive seen others say that its not, dont really know but especially noting the extremely small percentage of acetone in the fuel im not worried. heck, if it does blow up, i get a new car yay usaa, or new life, or death... either way, im really not all that worried. and while im sure that there is some rubber in there somewhere, i have traced it from tank to engine all three lines are metal on the outside, i was rather shocked at that one...
Well, I just wanted to warn you. :)

BTW the flexible fuel line segments look like metal because they have a stainless braided housing. But the actual fuel containment comes from a rubber liner inside the braid, which, theoretically can deteriorate and leak.

I do not know for sure if acetone will destroy fuel lines,
I wonder about the catalytic converter, I imagine it would have some ill effects overtime....

Water4Gas type device ----- Untested
Have not used/tried but it is said to work by running battery current through distilled water and baking soda to make HHO (they say) and this is taken in through the manifold via a vacuum line and through the air intake and is reported to have almost magical mileage benefits.

Any thoughts on this? I am almost tempted to try this out, It sounds chemically feasible and doesn't seem like it would blow up the engine.

I tried the Hydrogen Assist Fuel Cell which was the original one of those hydrogen systems. Adding the HHO mixture without doing anything else won't do anything (may even decrease mileage from increased alternator draw). For this idea to work, the fuel mixture has to be leaned out. The leaner mixture is ignited by the hydrogen which ignites much more easily than gasoline by itself. That (along with other "tricks") means a much faster burn that burns nearly all the fuel in the cylinder. My Beretta went from 22 MPG to 36 MPG when I installed it. I bought a Grand Am that doesn't have all the sensor problems that Beretta does, so hopefully I'll get around to installing it soon and seeing what the system can really do.

Here's one.
Stick a block under the accelerator pedal. It'll force you to drive slower and more economically.
You'll also be less willing to use the brakes because it'll take you ages to regain that speed.:grinyes:

^^^ kiwibacon has the best suggestion so far. It takes more energy to separate water in to H and O than you get back from combusting it, so unless you want to identify yourself as someone who failed chemistry and physics, don't talk about it here without doing a search first.

There is no way for your entire fuel line to be metal. If it is, it would fail in a few miles spewing gasoline all over a hot exhaust. The metal fuel lines are mounted rigidly to the frame. Both the engine and fuel tank are capable of movement, and in fact your engine oscillates up to 1/2" every single revolution. If you had hard fuel lines going from the frame to the engine, it would fail almost instantly. Imagine taking a piece of hard fuel line, and bending it 1/2" over an over. Now imagine doing that 100 times per second. Not going to happen.

Acetone eats rubber, and you have rubber in your fuel line, period. I don't care what kind of car you have, there is at least one (maybe three or four) sections of rubber from the tank to the steel lines, and the same between the steel lines and the engine/emissions components.

As a former consultant for a few major automotive companies, I invite you to ask me questions, but let's refrain from absolutes at this point until we get our feet in the same square. There are several VERY intelligent and knowledgable automotive techs and engineers here that have the info you crave :)

and in fact your engine oscillates up to 1/2" every single revolution.
That figure sounds a bit big...

imagine 300 odd kgs vibrating back and forth at 1000 hz with an amplitude of 1/2 an inch. Imagine the forces involved.

I know an engine can move that much from no load to full load, but every revolution? Seems unlikely to me.

That figure sounds a bit big...

imagine 300 odd kgs vibrating back and forth at 1000 hz with an amplitude of 1/2 an inch. Imagine the forces involved.

I know an engine can move that much from no load to full load, but every revolution? Seems unlikely to me.

Ixnay on the egativenay, dude...you're spoiling my dramatic effect :naughty:

I'm also using worst-case scenarios like American V8s. They rock back and forth like someone with shivers. Granted at higher RPMs they aren't oscillating quite as much, but at some RPMs, a good cam in a V8 can make it rock more than 1/2".

Ixnay on the egativenay, dude...you're spoiling my dramatic effect :naughty:

I'm also using worst-case scenarios like American V8s. They rock back and forth like someone with shivers. Granted at higher RPMs they aren't oscillating quite as much, but at some RPMs, a good cam in a V8 can make it rock more than 1/2".
Do some calculations with a crayon on a napkin of what would be nescessary.

Simple harmonic motion of a 250kg rectangular shape dimensions .3m (x) by .5m (y), around an axis at .15m (x), .2m (y), with frequency 1000hz and amplitude of 1/4 inch at the top of the rectangle.

The peak torque required is quite impressive. I'll spoil it for you if you want, but it's much more fun if you figure it out yourself (that way you don't doubt the validity of my figure) :)

Do some calculations with a crayon on a napkin of what would be nescessary.

Simple harmonic motion of a 250kg rectangular shape dimensions .3m (x) by .5m (y), around an axis at .15m (x), .2m (y), with frequency 1000hz and amplitude of 1/4 inch at the top of the rectangle.

The peak torque required is quite impressive. I'll spoil it for you if you want, but it's much more fun if you figure it out yourself (that way you don't doubt the validity of my figure) :)

My diesel would rock easily 1/2" either way on startup and shutdown. Cold idle would be around 1/4" each way. Yes it's peak torque is impressive.:grinyes:

My 1.8L petrol shopping basket also gets more than 1/2" movement in it's transaxle relative to the chassis, not from vibration but from drive torque. Courtesy of soft engine mounts to keep NVH levels low.

Curtis' point was that every engine needs flexible fuel lines. He's still right about that.

*facepalm* I got a stupidly large number because I used 1000Hz thinking that was 1000revs, but actually thats 60000. 50Hz would probably be more realistic (3krevs).

I can't redo it now, but I'm reasonably sure the number would still be way too high to be feasible.

My diesel would rock easily 1/2" either way on startup and shutdown. Cold idle would be around 1/4" each way. Yes it's peak torque is impressive.:grinyes:

My 1.8L petrol shopping basket also gets more than 1/2" movement in it's transaxle relative to the chassis, not from vibration but from drive torque. Courtesy of soft engine mounts to keep NVH levels low.

Curtis' point was that every engine needs flexible fuel lines. He's still right about that.

Yep, he's right, I was just making a comment on that figure, since it jumped out at me. And yeah, my whole car basically rocks back and forth 1/2 inch at startup :).

*facepalm* I got a stupidly large number because I used 1000Hz thinking that was 1000revs, but actually thats 60000. 50Hz would probably be more realistic (3krevs).

I can't redo it now, but I'm reasonably sure the number would still be way too high to be feasible.

Post up the calcs you used, I'm genuinely interested. I'm assuming it's just torsional vibration and you used the polar moment and torque on a solid block.
I thought it was obvious that engines shake the most at idle.:grinyes:

Post up the calcs you used, I'm genuinely interested. I'm assuming it's just torsional vibration and you used the polar moment and torque on a solid block.
I thought it was obvious that engines shake the most at idle.:grinyes:

Damnit, I just did the whole thing really neatly and then lost it because my login timed out before I clicked submit.

Anyway, I'll do it again. Feel free to correct me if I do anything wrong.

---------------------------
Starting assumptions:

Simple harmonic motion

Block has homogenous density, dimensions 0.3 on x by 0.5 on y, weight 250kg

Vibration amplitude is 1/4 inch (ie 1/2 inch side to side)

Vibration frequency is 50hz (3k RPM)

Block vibrates around axis parralel to Z but 0.05m below the CG of the block.

---------------------------
Angular displacement of vibration

Radius from axis of vibration to top of block: 0.3m
Displacement at top of block: 1/2 inch

Angular displacement:
radians=arc/radius
radians=0.0127/0.3
radians=0.04233
---------------------------
Moment of inertia

Moment of inertia of a solid rectangle around its CG, with axis parallel to one of its sides:

i=1/12*m*(h^2+w^2)
i=7.08333

However our block is vibrating around a point 0.05m below its CG.

Parallel axis theorem:

i(o)=i+m*r^2
i(o)=7.08333+250*0.05^2
i(o)=7.708333
---------------------------
Angular acceleration

Position w.r.t time is given by

p=(0.04233/2)*cos(50*2*pi*time)

velocity:

p'=-6.64918*sin(50*2*pi*time)

acceleration:

p''=-2088.901*cos(50*2*pi*time)

Which obviously has a peak of 2088.901 rad/s/s
---------------------------
Torque:

a=t/i

therefore

t=a*i

t=2088.901*7.708333
t=16101.95046

And that is that. 16 kilonewton-meters. Doesn't hold a candle to the figure I got last time (which shocked me a bit, but I couldn't see where I had gone wrong and I had never done something similar before so I didn't have much of a 'feel' for it), but it is still large enough to make it somewhat unfeasible.

Curtis is still right, as I know engines vibrate that much so they need the flexible rubber parts. It's just they don't vibrate back and forth like that every revolution.

I buy those numbers... but it is 3am :)

In my line of work, it its not rocking 1/2" you need more cam. If its rocking more than 1/2 you need solid motor mounts :)

Yeah, at this point (although I really crave a greater grasp of physics like Nereth has) the bottom line is that engines move relative to the frame/body, so somewhere there are soft lines.

the bottom line is that engines move relative to the frame/body, so somewhere there are soft lines.

This is true.

Damnit, I just did the whole thing really neatly and then lost it because my login timed out before I clicked submit.

Anyway, I'll do it again. Feel free to correct me if I do anything wrong.

---------------------------
Starting assumptions:

Simple harmonic motion

Block has homogenous density, dimensions 0.3 on x by 0.5 on y, weight 250kg

Vibration amplitude is 1/4 inch (ie 1/2 inch side to side)

Vibration frequency is 50hz (3k RPM)

Block vibrates around axis parralel to Z but 0.05m below the CG of the block.

---------------------------
Angular displacement of vibration

Radius from axis of vibration to top of block: 0.3m
Displacement at top of block: 1/2 inch

Angular displacement:
radians=arc/radius
radians=0.0127/0.3
radians=0.04233
---------------------------
Moment of inertia

Moment of inertia of a solid rectangle around its CG, with axis parallel to one of its sides:

i=1/12*m*(h^2+w^2)
i=7.08333

However our block is vibrating around a point 0.05m below its CG.

Parallel axis theorem:

i(o)=i+m*r^2
i(o)=7.08333+250*0.05^2
i(o)=7.708333
---------------------------
Angular acceleration

Position w.r.t time is given by

p=(0.04233/2)*cos(50*2*pi*time)

velocity:

p'=-6.64918*sin(50*2*pi*time)

acceleration:

p''=-2088.901*cos(50*2*pi*time)

Which obviously has a peak of 2088.901 rad/s/s
---------------------------
Torque:

a=t/i

therefore

t=a*i

t=2088.901*7.708333
t=16101.95046

And that is that. 16 kilonewton-meters. Doesn't hold a candle to the figure I got last time (which shocked me a bit, but I couldn't see where I had gone wrong and I had never done something similar before so I didn't have much of a 'feel' for it), but it is still large enough to make it somewhat unfeasible.

Curtis is still right, as I know engines vibrate that much so they need the flexible rubber parts. It's just they don't vibrate back and forth like that every revolution.
Thanks.
I was surprised to see you working in metric. Looks like the US has finally been assimilated.:grinyes:

Thanks.
I was surprised to see you working in metric. Looks like the US has finally been assimilated.:grinyes:

Nobody ever said I was American. :grinno:

Nobody ever said I was American. :grinno:

You need to change your handle to "waltzingmatilda" to avoid any confusion.:grinyes:

You boys enjoy your upcoming winter. I was just 80 degrees here today (that's 26.7 to you guys) :)

You need to change your handle to "waltzingmatilda" to avoid any confusion.:grinyes:
How the hell did you know I was australian :uhoh:

Edit: Oh wait it's in my profile.

*sits back down*

How the hell did you know I was australian :uhoh:



Don't be ashamed, I believe there is now a cure.

Don't be ashamed, I believe there is now a cure.

I must know more!

You boys enjoy your upcoming winter. I was just 80 degrees here today (that's 26.7 to you guys) :)

Sounds pleasant, we're running roughly 10-19 deg C here at the moment. Most Aussies don't know what winter means.:grinno: