Topic: Acetone In Fuel Said to Increase Mileage

[eldar]

The main problem with this premise is that all modern engines are extremely efficient with respect to completely combusting their mixtures - if they were not, they would emit unacceptable levels of hydrocarbons in their exhaust.  So even if acetone did change the way gasoline is atomized (no data whatsoever that it does BTW), there are no significant gains in combustion efficiency to be had.

So then, explain how a powerchip will increase HP, torque, AND mpg? If an engine were so efficient as you say, it would do nothing. Yet they ARE PROVEN to work on BOTH gas and diesel engines.
Clearly engines are not set very efficient from the factory. I know the whole line delivered by automaker "experts" that say it causes issues but I have yet to see it or read anything credible on it.
Supposedly it advances timing and causes issues with using cheap gas. Funny, cheap gas can cause issues with engines that are NOT advanced.

I seem to remember a certain metro car getting almost 50 mpg, now we need a hybrid to do it?
Seems liek a step back, OH WAIT. cars are heavier cause of all the electrics in them. Sorry sonny but metros had AC and electrics too. "But they are tin cans and unsafe in a crash." Then way are you riding a motorcycle if you are worried about crashing?

Just covering argument bases here that commonly come up.

Fact is I believe as do thousands of others that the auto makers are ripping us off and making poor efficiency vehicles.

[mlinder]

Can be explained pretty easily, actually.

The chips don't make an engine burn 'more efficiently'.
Stock programming usually runs things a bit lean, to reduce emissions. Performance chips rectify this, as well as other parameters, such as ignition timing, cam timing, and the volume of air and fuel introduced to the combustion chambers as well as intake runner length on some of the more advanced engines.
This doesn't change a given engines efficiency in atomizing fuel and burning the AF mixture. It only changes how much and when it does so.

[eldar]

Changing how much though and when DOES effect the efficiency. I mean if you can put in less fuel and make more power, then you clearly were NOT running at the most efficient level.
When you talk efficiency, you are talking about overall output compared to input. How much or how often does not matter.

If engine A uses 10 gallons and put out 100 hp over 500 miles
Engine B uses 8 gallons and puts out 110 hp and goes 500 miles

Which one is more efficient?  Regardless of timing or anything else and driving and weight being equal, clearly engine B is more efficient.

It is really as simple as that.

[mlinder]

Depends on what you are measuring efficiency by.
Mileage, or specific output.

That's my point. Once the optimal AF ratio is reached in an engine, you can either a:) make more power or b:) get better gas mileage.
The chips will tend to richen up the mix a bit, to reach closer to stoimetric AF ratio (or whatever the engine is best at combusting, rich or lean), but the main increase in mileage OR power is generally taken care of by timing, cam timing, and other parameters.
The main compromise being made previously to the installation of a performance hip is not MPG or power, It is primarily for emissions.
Once that variable is removed from the equation, you have only specific output, and fuel efficiency to play with. One does not necessarily equal the other. 
 

[eldar]

Burning closer to the stoch rating produces LESS emissions though. If you burn to lean you produce bad stuff, if you burn rich you produce bad stuff. That is why most power plants try to burn their fuel at that level.

However bringing emissions into this is kinda skirting the subject. Greatest efficiency does not mean lowest emissions.

As we were talking about efficiency and not emissions, I would still be correct.
As most power programmers increase power AND mileage, clearly and engine is not at it most efficient.

[mlinder]

Not entirely.

Most engines are programmed to meet certain pollution requirements. This is NOT the most efficient (in terms of power OR mpg) AF ratio.
Simply 'fixing' this scenario gives both MPG and HP. But after this, increasing one or the other is much easier than increasing both.

[eldar]

But BOTH can be increased and it is common with power programmers. There are also programmers for diesel that do the same thing. 

[mystic_1]

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.


mystic_1

[mlinder]

But BOTH can be increased and it is common with power programmers. There are also programmers for diesel that do the same thing. 

That's what I said. Doing this changes the emissions (for the worse). ONCE this is done, then you chose power or MPG. Usually not both.

[eldar]

As they say you can have cheap, fast, and good but not all 3. I really wonder though if emissions really tanks though. Generally the more efficient something is, the less emission it creates. Now of course it may be worse but is it california worse or just a little.

[eldar]

Actually there is mystic. My boss is bringing me a free lunch this month in fact. So you are wrong!