Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Gas Saving Gizmos & Gadgets

123578

Comments

  • vitronvitron Posts: 9
    Hi Nortsr1,

    Cut me a little slack here! My company has been in R/D for the last two years and has only been selling the units to the public for about 2.5 months.

    We have contacted Consumer Reports and are in the process of providing information to them. I will definently keep this forum posted on the process! And, yes... I know... their outcome will either make or break the company. Fortunately, I'm 100% confident that it will 'make' me, not out of blind optimism, but because I have seen and experienced the results.

    Maybe GM will contact me. Like I said, I'm not opposed to the idea, I would just insist on one condition; use it!

    -Chris.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,148
    Sorry, you've pushed a bit far on this one.

    No matter how you slice it, buring gasoline will never (at least not in my life time) produce only CO2 and H2O, ain't gonna happen. The fact is that there are just too many additives, scavengers, and impurities in gasoline to ever burn as cleanly as would pure hydrogen.

    The more I see of what you write and what you claim, the more I'm thinking that this is just another scam.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • vitronvitron Posts: 9
    Hi Shipo,

    That's an interesting belief, I wonder how useful it will continue to be for you as this technology is tested and further developed.

    First I would like to emphasize that I'm not stating that the only byproducts from combustion in the real world are H2O and CO2, however those are the ideal byproducts. That fact is incontrovertible and is readily verified in any fuel chemistry book.

    The fact that there are impurities, additives, etc... in gasoline isn't relevant to the discussion regarding increasing fuel economy. To illustrate my point, let's take a look at the main functions that a catalytic converter does.

    The first catalytic reaction is a reduction of Nitrogen oxides back into nitrogen and oxygen. 2NOx → xO2 + N2

    Where does the nitrogen come from? Certainly not from the fuel! It comes from the Air, however because of the Air/Fuel mixture ratio and incomplete burning of hydrocarbons, the ambient nitrogen binds with oxygen to for 2NOx. If the hydrocarbons were more completely burned (Oxidation) then there would be less O2 for the Nitrogen to bind to. This is one of the advantages of our system.

    The second catalytic reaction is the oxidation of CO to CO2.
    2CO + O2 → 2CO2

    Where does 2CO come from? Again, incomplete hydrocarbon-burn. There simply weren't enough oxygen atoms to bind to the carbon atoms. The other related by-product created from the O2 deficiency in this scenario is plain carbon as is evidenced if you hold a white cloth to the exhaust pipe while running.

    The third and arguably the most important reaction your catalytic converter does is oxidation of unburnt hydrocarbons!

    2CxHy + (2x+y/2)O2 → 2xCO2 + yH2O

    That's right the byproducts of your catcon is water and carbon dioxide. In other words wasted fuel.

    You're right that we will probably never see 100% fuel efficiency from petrol-based fuels. There are a lot of factors involved. Given the above information can you at least see that the way we currently burn gasoline is extremely inefficient? With more than 500 different hydrocarbon structures in gasoline, it is simply impossible to reach true stoichiometry for the combustion reaction(s). The classic 14.7:1 is a decent average but leaves a lot to be desired in ensuring you're getting the best possible fuel economy.

    What if we could guarantee that the majority of hydrocarbons entering the combustion chamber were chemically identical? Then we could better predict the correct stoichiometric O2 levels to give more complete combustion.

    That's what this product does!

    Once again, I apreciate the skepticism and the genuine questions. I know it may be a little difficult to accept that there might be a better way of doing things. I'm not trying to start a religion about this and I don't ask anyone to simply believe me. I do hope everyone will take the time to really investigate the technology and the facts about the process before forming a solid opinion.

    It's worth that much, isn't it?

    -Chris.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,148
    I've gotta tell you, guarantees are a dime a dozen in your "industry", and I for one am not even remotely interested in such a guarantee.

    While I have an open mind to most new innovations (I am a patented inventor after all), it is safe to say that I hold your claims with huge skepticism, to say the very least. Why? Well, so far at least, I've not seen a single shred of evidence that would suggest to me that your product would have a measurable impact on fuel economy, positive or negative.

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • vitronvitron Posts: 9
    Hi Shipo,

    Again, thanks for the candor. We could argue back and forth for all eternity and get nowhere. I can think of only one possible solution that would be productive.

    Wait until we get the results back from Consumer Reports. I'm certainly putting my reputation on the line with this move. Which is exactly what's needed, after all - I'm the one with the claims and you're the smart consumer who doesn't want to buy something simply on the promises of a stranger. I respect that.

    I will keep this forum posted as we make progress down this road. If I'm wrong, I will accept it publicly. If I'm right, I hope you'll consider buying one!

    Until then, you may want to check out this article published by MIT:

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2003/plasmatron.html

    The technology they use is similar in function as ours, we have a much diferent way of generating the plasma though.

    Respectfully,

    Chris.
  • fezofezo Manahawkin, NJPosts: 10,376
    Oh! One more thing... a vitron-plasma modified vehicle will pass emissions even with the catalytic converter removed. Of course, it's illegal to remove it permenantly but you technically COULD.

    Of course the same could be said of an 80 Accord...
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • nortsr1nortsr1 Posts: 1,060
    VITRON...You sated that you have contacted Consumers Report. Have they responded to your request. You state "Wait until we get the results back from Consumers Report"...are they already testing your product??? Have you sent them a vehicle that is retrofitted with your gas saving device???
    I will formally "Cut you some slack" if in fact they do test it with "positive" results. In fact, if they say it is amazing and truly does what is is supposed to do,
    you will be looking for a huge manufacturing plant, a warehouse and a lot of new employees because you can bet....it will sell like hotdogs at a ballpark.( and I will be one of your first customers.

    NORTSR
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 26,858
    Wait until we get the results back from Consumer Reports. I'm certainly putting my reputation on the line with this move.

    Have you contacted any other media outlets? I'm thinking any number of car magazines (they'd probably ALL be all over it and would even fly someone to see you on their own dime), Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, etc.

    '19 Ioniq plug-in, '10 Equinox LS; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '14 Town&Country Limited; '18 BMW X2. 50-car history and counting!

  • kernickkernick Posts: 4,072
    It may help your credibility if you were professional enough to use a spell-checker on your website. How many "p's" in triple?

    Yes please post any independent, professional reviews of your product.
  • kernickkernick Posts: 4,072
    So let me ask you what your business strategy is? You're the CEO of this company right?

    I would think that a CEO of a company that could potentially be worth billions of $'s, would be spending their time looking for major investors, and be trying to get prominent, established scientific reviewers to look at your product.

    It seems rather strange that you spend even an hour a day talking to a handful of people here.

    It would appear to me that your business strategy is to find the dumbest 1-2% of the population, and market to them. Now I may be wrong, and you may be the Gomer Pyle nice guy of business, but don't you think that wasting your time, if you're product is worth anything?
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,444
    I read the article. It is from 2003. They licensed the technology to ArvinMeritor who was planning to have a vehicle in operation within a year and a half. When you go to ArvinMeritor and try to find any info on Plasmatron you come up zero. MIT states it could POSSIBLY save up to 20% on a diesel engine. NOT 300% on a gas engine.

    I am just a skeptic by nature. You have attracted several guys here that are skeptics with credentials to back up their skepticism.

    I will wait to see what CR says, though I am even skeptical of them....I am sure that GM would kill for such a device. They are on the brink of disaster because their vehicles use too much gas. Your device would bring them back to the top with flying colors. And make you a billionaire in the process.

    If it works.....
  • fezofezo Manahawkin, NJPosts: 10,376
    I am just a skeptic by nature.

    NAh... You're kidding me, right? ;)
    2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
  • vitronvitron Posts: 9
    I'm going to try to compact the answers into one posting instead of responding to each of them individually.

    Spelling - Very true - that would increase credibility, I'll be sure to spell-check things better. It never was one of my strong points.

    Consumer Reports - They don't have one yet but the communications between us look like they are interested in obtaining one and testing it. I'm not personally handling this, my marketing guys are. I have been tracking the progress though.

    Other Media Outlets - We have a TV reporter investigating it with a live demo on the 14th. This is just to increase public awareness of the product.

    Other Media Outlets - Popular Mechanics was contacted, so far no response.

    Business Model - I own another company in a totally unrelated field that does defense contracting. We recently signed an 8 figure contract so I have been investing some of that into this company. Angel investor's and VC's always want a very large percentage. Self-funding seems to be a better way to go.

    Business Model - I recently purchased a production facility overseas to handle higher volume. We haven't been aggressively advertising the product yet because we wouldn't have been able to keep up on the orders - which spells bad business.

    Also, the question of whether we're an MLM has been tossed about on this forum and we're not. We are looking for distributorships / resellers but they are not allowed to sell sub distributorships below them. Our marketing model is more closely modeled after CISCO Systems approach.

    MIT Plasmatron - The difference is that they're using plasma to crack the fuel all the way down to hydrogen and discarding the carbon components. Hydrogen rich gasoline is known to increase flame speed / spread resulting in an improvement in gas mileage (30% claimed). We're using plasma to break larger hydrocarbons into smaller ones (and keeping the carbon). That's the main difference and why we have significantly higher results.


    Lastly, I wonder if we could get some of those "water for gas" people to chime in here. Now that would be interesting!

    Thanks for all the comments!

    Who wants a free one to try? I offered one to Larsb and even offered to come install it for free but haven't been able to work it out. Anyone else want to give it a shot?

    -Chris.
  • texasestexases Posts: 9,056
    "While you're correct that over 90% of the fuel molecules (hydrocarbons) do participate in the combustion process, only 18-25% of the hydrocarbons are fully reduced to lowest possible energy states of H20 and CO2. The other 75-80% are broken down into smaller hydrocarbons (which is of course still a fuel). "

    More nonsense. But here's a question: to make the above statement, you must know the composition of this exaust gas. Please list the composition, by component and concentration.
  • larsblarsb Posts: 8,204
    I need one of these and one of the vitrons and I will be SET BAYBEE !!!!!!!!!!

    Recycle that CO2 into Fuel Dude !!!

    Origo Develops Recycling System that Turns Car Emissions Into Fuel

    The concept has been around for a while, but Origo Industries is planning on being the first company to release a CO2 recycling system that turns your car emissions into fuel. The unit captures CO2 from your car exhaust and stores it until it can be recycled in a home unit that uses algae to produce bio-oil. According to the company, the system could produce as much as 660 gallons of free fuel per year—which sounds too good to be true. We shall find out soon enough as Origo is scheduled to unveil the technology for the first time at this year's Green-Car-Guide Live! in the UK starting on June 12th
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,148
    "Who wants a free one to try? I offered one to Larsb and even offered to come install it for free but haven't been able to work it out. Anyone else want to give it a shot?"

    Oddly enough I have the perfect car for a test like this. Our old 1998 3.8 liter Dodge Grand Caravan has been with us since we bought it new in July of 1998, and I've tracked the mileage on it since then. I have a spread sheet that has logged most fill-ups since new through about the 100,000 mile mark, and all but two or three fill-ups since then (another ~60,000 miles).

    Would I volunteer to do it? I suppose so, however, there are some logistical issues that would have to be dealt with as I live in New Hampshire (you're in Colorado I believe) and so having you install it would be problematic to say the least. That said, I'm a pretty fair wrench and would be willing to do the installation myself if that would work.

    I don't know, maybe I'm nuts for offering, but there it is. In me you get a car with a demonstrated fuel economy history, a skeptical tester and logistical challenges.

    Thoughts?

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • vitronvitron Posts: 9
    Hi Shipo,

    I'm game. I'll even fly out there and install it for you. All I ask is that you provide an honest report of your experience, good or bad - back to this group and make a statement for my website (I'll even publish it if it's negative as long as it's honest).

    Sound fair?

    If so, send an email to [email protected] and give me some contact info.

    I look forward to showing you what it does!

    -Chris
  • texasestexases Posts: 9,056
    Capturing CO2 from exhaust is no easy feat, and doing it in a car is doubly difficult. The first place that would make actual sense to do that is a stationary coal fired power plant. Those efforts are just getting started. Sounds more like 'fishing for investors' to me.
  • mattandimattandi Posts: 588
    I've only been lurking around this convo. Lotsa fun.

    I like you man. You've got chutzpah. You appear to understand the skepticism. The claims of what your technology is capable of are, to say the least, provocative. And I sure ain't gonna rag on you for addressing what you provoke on the internet. Larsb said you seemed serious, and apparently you are. I don't know if you're just blowing smoke. At least you don't sound like you are.

    I will say that it does seem to me that someone like Popular Mechanics would be more appropriate to fully test your tech. Just seems that CR is more into testing consumer products once they are a bit more mainstream. Then again I'm not making decisions for CR, so what do I know. Shoot, why not approach the Edmunds folks to give it a go? Just thinking out loud, have you considered other possibilities to have this tested, say like the academic community? Surely some professor has a group of grad students in need of a project.

    Anyway, hang in there. I hope it works. I like that Yukon sitting in my driveway, but I sure don't like feeding it.
  • kernickkernick Posts: 4,072
    I like you man. You've got chutzpah. You appear to understand the skepticism. The claims of what your technology is capable of are, to say the least, provocative.

    That statement could also apply to Bill Murray and Dan Ackroyd in Ghostbusters. They sure made me believe those devices worked, and he seemed sincere. :D
  • mattandimattandi Posts: 588
    lol

    Well, I had some misgivings about Venkman's sincerity.
  • texasestexases Posts: 9,056
    It's kinda like "I will sell you these cardboard wings to tape to your arms, and I promise you'll fly if you just flap hard enough." Sincere? Yes....Reasonable? I don't think so...
  • vitronvitron Posts: 9
    Um... that sounds a bit like a hang-glider.

    People also used to think that if you went faster than 35mph you would burst into flames.

    I guess it's a good thing that people are willing to at least try instead of assuming that it's impossible, only because it hasn't been done.

    -Chris.
  • texasestexases Posts: 9,056
    You're absolutely correct, I was much too lenient in my analogy. It's more like "You thought 1+1=2? I now know 1+1=10, and I'll be happy to sell you the solution!" Your claim that 82% of gasoline is incompletely combusted is simply wrong. All that you build on that claim is, therefore, nonsense.
  • sevenupsevenup Posts: 2
    Hi. Just using gas gas is not an option even 1+1=10 , let it sit ;)
    or if can offer not use gas opposite :sick:
    it is what it is now .

    sevenup
  • jipsterjipster Louisville, KentuckyPosts: 5,746
    Did you take vitron up on his offer to come out to your locality and install one of his gizmo's on your Grand Caravan? Maybe, you are in the process of liquidating all your assets to fully invest in this guys product? If this is what is going on, don't let your Edmunds pals out on getting a piece of the pie. Let us know. Don't be greedy dawg! :P
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,148
    No, sorry, due to a number of dynamic professional commitments, I haven't had the opportunity to respond yet, and depending upong how things go, I may not be able.

    Trust me, if I get the opportunity to play guinea pig, I'll let y'all know, for better or for worse. :shades:

    Best Regards,
    Shipo
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,444
    to debunk the "run your car on water" myth

    Posted Jul 8th 2008 at 12:54PM by Jeremy Korzeniewski

    A quick Google search is all that is required to find hundreds of stories of people who claim to have increased their fuel mileage by installing a hydrogen generator which extracts hydrogen and oxygen from water and funnels the gas into the engine. Some of the claims are pretty wild, and the Japanese company Genepax has again lit a fire under the topic of running a car on water. While the Genepax car uses a conventional fuel cell, most of the "kits" available on the Internet introduce a bit of gas into the engine which is then combusted along with the liquid gasoline.

    It is, of course, natural to feel a desire to buy into the hype promised by these systems. The truth, though, is that large fuel economy gains are highly unlikely. Popular Mechanics has decided to build themselves one of these systems for testing. The mag intends to install the finished product in an automobile and report back. We're keenly interested in their findings, though we're pretty sure we already know what will happen. Stay tuned.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    This site was linked from the News section at fueleconomy.gov, the US EPA website:

    "These widely-advertised devices, known variously as a "hydrogen generator" or "hydrogen booster," claim to be able to use electricity from your car battery to split water into its components of oxygen and hydrogen. This supposedly forms what is called "Browns Gas."

    Scientists say the idea is preposterous, with one saying the energy created would "not amount to a hill of beans."

    'Run Your Car On Water' Scheme Could Leave Consumers All Wet (Consumer Affairs.com)
  • Can we run our car with water and gas?
    Can anybody tell me is the HHO Gas is real working or is another scam?
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    Scam - just look at the Consumer Affairs link in my post above.
  • vpitmanvpitman Posts: 2
    HHO is just a non-conventional way of writing H2O. It's another water scam. :lemon: Okay, so here are a few more thoughts on saving gas that might actually matter to a few of you:

    I was an industrial engineer for a decade, and in college a friend built a bubbler, loosely based on these claims. He did have a slight increase in mileage (half a mile per gallon), but that could have easily been his city/highway driving mix or just the extra work he did on the car while prepping his little experiment (it was a hooptie old Nissan sedan, and he never did ANY maintenance, that I'm aware of, so he did hours of work and got a questionable improvement).
    If you're driving a big truck or SUV, the best thing you can do is check your air in your tires. I was getting about 13 mpg and hadn't checked the tires in a while. I was only a few pounds low in 2 tires, and I jumped to a hair over 16 mpg, for the last two tanks of gas. That's almost a 25% improvement for a few minutes of time (a couple of quarters, if your gas station has a coin-op air compressor). Few people are having any luck with the programmers (other than people with big diesel engines), because they are tuned for performance with premium gas, and you only see improvements if you drive like a grandma.

    It still doesn't make sense to get rid of an older car, just to buy a new one with better mileage. People are freaking out about this, instead of thinking it through. Here's how the numbers REALLY work (ignore the TV and internet ads): If you are getting 15 mpg now in your monster truck (which is paid off), and you drive 15,000 miles per year, you're buying 1,000 gallons of gas, call it $5,000 at $5 per gallon (sorry, folks, but it's still going up, and will probably be at $5/gallon, if not higher, by X-mas).
    Okay, say you buy a Prius, and you average 49 mpg (my father-in-law uses his daily for his 52 mile per direction commute, and that's what he averages). So, to drive that same 15,000 miles, you will need about 306 gallons of gas, and you will spend about $1530. So, you'll save $3430, right? No, you won't. You don't own a Prius, so you have to go buy one!
    To figure your cost correctly, you need to add the cost of gas plus the cost of the car payment (the monster truck is paid off, right?). So, let's assume that you find a Prius in stock (good luck!), and you opt for a few goodies bringing the total to $27,589 (because you don't really have a choice, you're going to buy what you can get, and if that one has extras you don't want, tough, wait another three to six months... Oh, and that's the Touring version with everything but the navigation system, which is what my wife and I were going to buy 3 years ago, except a local corporate buyer ordered 300 of them, and we were told we'd have to wait 9 months before we could get ours...). Okay, let's say you find a buyer for your monster truck and get something out of it (we'll be kind and say $5,000, because, let's face it, not too many people are buying SUVs, right now), so that puts you financing around $23,000, monthly payments of something like $450 for 60 months.
    So, the final cost is REALLY: monster truck $415 a month in gas, plus any maintenance and repair work. New Prius, $450 a month in car payments plus $127.50 a month in gas.

    Now, this is all based on an optimum situation. What happens if you owe more on your SUV than you can get for it (being 'upside down' on your note)? You got problems. What if you are still making payments, but you can get out of your old car for less than you owe? Well, you can make a bigger down payment, and the monthly payment for the Prius is lower. What if you buy a cheaper used car that gets decent mileage? Well, your payments would go way down, but your gas costs would be somewhat higher. For example, we also have an '05 Scion XB, which you could pick up for around $12,500, in our area. With nothing down (assuming you were upside down on your loan) and 36 month financing (more common for used cars), your payments would be about $375. Mileage is right at 30 mpg, on average, so monthly gas would be about $210 a month. Not bad. The monster truck is still better. But, if you CAN get $5,000 for the monster truck, then you only finance about half of the car cost, and you could get payments of about $230 and $210 a month for gas. This is still a bit more than gas for the monster truck, but it's a reliable Toyota vehicle, and this one is actually about as comfortable inside as our older Tahoe (it's narrower, but the leg room in front and back seats is excellent--and I'm 6'5").

    So, even buying a used car with very good gas mileage is still slightly more expensive than sticking with your monster truck, and, depending on how much importance you place on your vehicle, may be a bit of a blow to your ego (even though the XB is a cool and funky ride). And if you have green activists giving you grief, then ask them how many tons of carbon emissions and energy expenditure went into building them a new car, while you are just recycling in a big, vehicular kind of way. See the great article in the June Wired or on their website Keep Your SUV-June Wired.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    It still doesn't make sense to get rid of an older car, just to buy a new one with better mileage.

    Check out our Gas-Guzzler Trade-In Calculator

    In the news at Yahoo:

    4 Gas-Saving Deals That Rarely Pay Off
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 26,858
    That calculator is ... interesting. One big flaw is that it fails to take into consideration the "new car" factor.

    I guess its not really quantifiable most times, so that's the problem. But, for instance, I tried it by plugging in a coworkers situation. She has a '94 Volvo 960 with 120k miles that is in constant need of repairs (she neglects it until it demands fixing). One of the cars she is looking at is a Honda Fit. Well, the calculator spits back that it would take her around 13 years to break even. But it obviously doesn't point out that the Volvo won't go for 13 years without SERIOUS repair costs.

    But, maybe the calculator is only intended for those trading in something newer with low miles. (?)

    '19 Ioniq plug-in, '10 Equinox LS; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '14 Town&Country Limited; '18 BMW X2. 50-car history and counting!

  • texasestexases Posts: 9,056
    "But, maybe the calculator is only intended for those trading in something newer with low miles."

    That's my beef with it, it's right if you're thinking of trading an '05 whatever, but it should give a different answer in the situation you posed - regardless of gas price people will trade in at some point.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    That's not "NBC News" - that's a local affiliate TV station.

    Wake me up when Tom Brokaw starts selling the mason jars full of baking soda. :D
  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 26,858
    My favorite part is when he shows scraps of notebook paper where he has jotted down big company names to "prove" that they have contacted him.

    Hey, ya think that works? I just wrote down Halle Berry's name on a postit. We must be having an affair.

    '19 Ioniq plug-in, '10 Equinox LS; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '14 Town&Country Limited; '18 BMW X2. 50-car history and counting!

  • qbrozenqbrozen Posts: 26,858
    THIS is a water car!

    '19 Ioniq plug-in, '10 Equinox LS; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '14 Town&Country Limited; '18 BMW X2. 50-car history and counting!

  • stommpsstommps Posts: 7
    Well that definitely qualifies as a car that runs on water :)
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    Props to you. :shades:
  • texasestexases Posts: 9,056
    "My favorite part is when he shows scraps of notebook paper where he has jotted down big company names to "prove" that they have contacted him. "

    Yeah, that's rich. I just emailed the reporter, asked him why he's advertising a scam. We'll see what he says...
  • richievrichiev Posts: 5
    havent heard anything about either of these links/ sites you have posted.

    i heard using a little "Pure Acetone" (from a beauty supply store) in your tank (approximately 3oz per 10 gallons) will boost mileage up to 40 miles per tank on average.

    i'm going to try it today actually and see if it does work :);)
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,444
    Be advised, it can destroy rubber and will eat your paint. It also increases the pressure in your gas tank possibly interferring with emissions. My question. Does the added cost of acetone, plus the hazards add up to any savings? Snopes says it does NOT increase your mileage.

    Welcome to the forum

    And be careful with that stuff. I would not try it in any car under warranty. It could void it.
  • richievrichiev Posts: 5
    this is the point of usine 3oz per 10 gallons. that is too little of a dose to have impact like you are speaking of as well. thisnk about gasoline? do you think it has corrosive properties to it? i believe so!
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    You might wind up with a little boost if the acetone cleans out your fuel injectors. Some say the solvent will ruin the rubber tubing in your gas line connections and mess up your ECU and oxygen sensors too.

    MythBusters reportedly tested adding acetone to gas and recorded a decrease in mpg.
  • richievrichiev Posts: 5
    i love advice however advice is not always what its cracked up to be.

    everyone has their own opinions and everyone is entitled to them. ( not saying you are wrong so please dont take what i said as an attack at you or anyone)

    i personally like to test things on my own to determine if whats being said is true or not. there is always a "yin" and "yang" to everything and the only way to determine is to test test test.

    that is my opinion on the matter

    even doing just one test on a subject is never enough to get feed back. i mean when we all started learning how to walk, did we try once and fall and decide that walking doesnt work but meanwhile people all around us are walking everyday? of course not, we get right back up and try it again and again and again until we get it right, just most people and i mean 99.9% of people give up just shy of success and then determine that something doesnt work and have that opinion and spread that to the world of people they know and so on

    on the other hand you have someone who keeps on keepin on and finds a whay it works and tells everyone they know and so on and so on and thats why we have the "yin" and "yang"

    again, just my opinion :)
  • gagricegagrice Pahrump, NevadaPosts: 31,444
    Let us know the results.
  • richievrichiev Posts: 5
    i most definately will and thank you for giving me the opportunity to post something of interest and listening to what i had to say :shades:
  • richievrichiev Posts: 5
    what kind of acetone? there is a difference in acetone you know?. if you buy the acetone in home depot then yes that is possible "pure acetone" in a beauty supply shop may see different results
This discussion has been closed.